Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Health and Rehabilitation (Keele University)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. No consensus after two weeks and good arguments on all options JForget  18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

School of Health and Rehabilitation (Keele University)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

There's no reason to have a separate article here -- it fails WP:ORG on its own and should be merged to Keele University. The general idea of course is that we don't have separate articles on departments/schools -- just a single article on the university. (I had carried out a merge after no objection to proposal on talk page -- but another editor has now reversed this.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - normally I would agree with a merge. However, this school previously had an independent existence as the Oswestry and North Staffordshire School of Physiotherapy which would be notable. With this history there is significant scope for expansion to deal with the previous incarnation. Needs sourcing, obviously, but that is an editorial matter. TerriersFan (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Nomoskedasticity

Keep - I presume you have read my message on your talk page. This article has been present on Wikipedia for some time and has not met with any previous objection. The current justification for removing this article is "the general idea of course". If this is in fact a "general idea" then this is somewhat short of a rational justification for the deletion of this article. A "general idea" does not indicate that this article is in breach of Wikipedia rules or regulations. This article is not attempting to advertise or promote for commercial or non-commercial purposes this specific department or institution.

Your prior justification was that this School was not particularly notable or worthy of a separate article. I trust that my reply appropriately challenged this assumption. This article is a valid and informative article on a notable department within an academic institution. Other departments within academic institutions appear to have such articles written about them with no such objections.

If this article does explictly breach Wikipedia rules or regulations then please be much more accurate in indicating this breach by refering directly to the rules or regualtions. If it does not explicitly breach regulation, then the justification for deleting this article appears to be largely subjective and I would strongly object to an article being deleted on what would appear to be personal opinion.

Happy to discuss this further.

Bluelegend (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that Nomoskedasticity hasn't worded his nomination statement particularly well so some explanation might assist. Organizations should meet WP:ORG in order to merit an article. WP:RS and WP:CITE are also relevant. Whilst it is normal for articles to be assessed against these guidelines, at AfD we also try to have an element of consistency. Based on that, medical and law schools usually get articles but other departments generally don't unless there is a specific reason (as I have identified here). I would add a caveat. Independent, reliable sources need to be added to stand up the claims in the page. If such sources cannot be found, even if this page is kept (and it is much too soon to say it will be), then the article might come back for a deletion/merge discussion in the future. TerriersFan (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Bluelegend (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for your comment TerriersFan. If there are issues with citations, independent references etc. to support the statements in this article, then as editorial issues these can be dealt with. There does not however appear to be a valid justification for the rationale behind the inclusion of articles relating to Medical and Law Schools (which are often departments of HEIs) and the aparent exclusion of other departments/schools. From an outside-in perspective, this appears inconsistent. This Policy (informal in its nature) does appear to question the academic standing of other disciplines, without any reliable justification; this is inappropriate. In this case you have suggested keeping the article based on the School's previous independent incarnation (i would agree with this), but the notion of deleting an article about a School because is not Department/School of Medicine or Law cannot be justified.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete or Merge. Since it is standard practice for universities to subdivide into schools, colleges, departments and sometimes divisions, separate articles on them need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. I can't find any secondary sources that say there is anything remarkable about this school, or its predecessors or . The article makes no claim of notability for the school and reads like an "about us" webpage. Ideally, this page will be deleted, since its title is not the name of the school, and a redirect created for Oswestry and North Staffordshire School of Physiotherapy to Keele University.  Abductive  (reasoning) 16:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * merge We sometimes do keep articles for the larger major divisions of the most important universities--see any such article--Columbia, UCLA, Harvard, etc. This is a good university, but not at that sort of internationally-famous level. This is a relatively small unit, essentially the equivalent of a department, mot a major first-level unit. That they choose to call it a separate "school" makes no difference--it is still only 250 students. 2 BA programs, 4 small masters', and all in a single rather small building, judging from the photograph.   We do discriminate between the degree of coverage different colleges and departments based on their importance. It will still be covered, but in the university article. Covering everything to an equal extent regardless amounts to being a directory, not an encyclopedia.    DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Bluelegend (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep & comment Again the discussion and rationale for removing this article is not consistent or objective. Above comments relate to importance, or "international fame" status. How exactly has such importance or status been deduced? A number of Alumni may disagree with the above assessment, including MPs and other notable figures (including the son of a UN secretary general). The University has also made significant contributions in various disciplines, developments relating to the cochlea implant to name one. The School in this article is not big in terms of size but this relates to the fact that it is involved in education and research pertaining to very specific and relatively small science based vocational disciplines. As a result this article may be of significant interest to those in the rehabilitation field. The size issue is not therefore sufficient to warrant removing the article. Another comment relates to the School not being a "major first-level unit". The results of the 2008 & 2009 National Student Survey can challenge this. This can be verified by visiting www.unistats.co.uk and entering Physiotherapy. If this article is to be removed then the rationale needs strengthening and should take account of the specific field within which this school operates. Without this then a largely subjective result will emerge which is not desirable or appropriate.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.