Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences


 * 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. One of the core disputes seems to be regarding the sources written by people associated with UCL but published by other, independant, entitites. Wikipedia policy does not offer a straight answer to whether or not these should be considered independent which means this discussion can only be closed as "no consensus". There are suggestions about renaming that seem very sensible and should be discussed further on the talk page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nothing more than a list of links to departments, no indication that it is "especially notable or significant" as per Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines. Prod which was contested without comment. RadioFan (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources may easily be found such as this, which covers the topic in detail and tells us that it has a high research rating. Or that which covers the topic in detail and tells us about its methods of teaching engineering.  The topic is therefore notable and it is our editing policy to keep such material.   The guidelines of the project mentioned are not such an official guideline or policy and so have no standing here. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The first link is to a single paragraph in a college guide which appears to include all colleges. Comprehensive directories like this dont do much to establish notability.  We dont use phone books as references for similar reasons.  The second link does mention the topic but I'm still not seeing this rising to the level demanded by WP:SIGCOV, specifically because this university department isn't addressed directly by the reference, its only a brief, passing mention.--RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well firstly this as pointed out is just a glorified directory listing, however the second one is actually not about the UCL in London but about Université catholique de Louvain. The give away is if you use the "Search this book" feature for "London" the only 9 hits are in lists of references. Codf1977 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable constituent academic department, the links provided do not show any significant coverage of the department - UCL is clearly notable, its departments are not necessarily. What next articles on departments of FTSE 100 companies. Codf1977 (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The links provided satisfy the definition of WP:SIGCOV and so your comment is counterfactual. I don't see what the FTSE 100 has to do with it but that observation is counterfactual too.  For example, the Financial Times and the FTSE 100 both have separate articles even though they are wholly-owned properties and departments of Pearson PLC. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No they do not, and comment is not counterfactual - my point is are we going to have articles on the BP Engineering department for example. This is not a separate legal entity it is part of UCL. Codf1977 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see template:BP for our articles about the divisions of that company. Whether such bodies are legal entities or not is quite irrelevant to our coverage as it is not our policy to structure our articles according to company law.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But this is just a sub section of a larger body which shows no signs of being notable or significant in its own right. Codf1977 (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comments continue to be counterfactual. For another source, please see chapter 8 which has much to say about the facilities, history and staff of this institution. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The references and external links provided in the article are all primary ones, I'm not seeing how this satisfies WP:SIGCOV.--RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The links provided in the discussion above are to secondary sources. I have not yet added these to the article as we are here primarily to discuss the article, not to work upon it. Per our editing policy, you should please evaluate the article's potential rather than its current state. It is still an early draft - not yet a month old - and has only been worked on by a novice editor. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:1Particularly5 am, Today (UTC−4)
 * That is what is being done here. Evaluating the topic based on available references and possibility of expansion of the article to bring it up to notability standards.  Just not seeing how this topic can meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Same reason as (User:Colonel Warden) - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
 * and what might that be ? that coverage about an unrelated university in a totally different country was thourght to be about this one ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This "article" (using the term loosely) breaks so many policies/guidelines that I don't even see how deletion could be questioned. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - per Col. Warden: is essentially a stub, but needs to be expanded, not deleted. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment how do you see this meeting notability guidelines?--RadioFan (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Response IMO, Col. Warden's arguments are already more than sufficient. The discussion should have been over when he linked the academic report of its engineering teaching methodology. However, even without the coverage in the independent, 2nd party publications which he has already provided, the article topic is a major, internationally regarded engineering faculty that at least has common sense notability per alternate criteria for non-commercial organizations in the contexts of academia, engineering, and the city of London. A Times of London archive search alone results in over 1400 hits alone for "University College London" engineering, so I don't believe it is a reach to assume it has sufficient independent coverage in it or the the dozens of other 2nd party newspapers and publications based in London. No doubt, the article is a stub and needs to be cleaned up and expanded, and it should be tagged appropriately for those issues. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but as above the link that you claim settles it is actually not about the UCL in London but about Université catholique de Louvain. As for the hits number you quote there is zero indication that they will be about the Faculty of Engineering Sciences, nor do I think it can be assumed they are. Codf1977 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So it is and shame on me for not noticing that above. That still doesn't change my overall opinion of the faculty's notability. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not notice it at first, but without the refs to support it, how can you conclude it is notable. Codf1977 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I've already answered that above, but there is additional coverage (as is in this book here, not to mention the other book on this history of the university) and, as I said, it is not a huge assumption that there is more. It is an active, established, substantially sized research engineering faculty that covers a myriad of disciplines. It is a natural break-out article to main UCL one, but needs to be cleaned up and expanded. CrazyPaco (talk)
 * In both cases those are written by non-independent authors and are not suitable for determining nobility. Codf1977 (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If the science community considers it notable, then its notable. They are the ones to make a decision about this sort of thing.  Ample coverage as well.   D r e a m Focus  19:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide refs to show that ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you actually read the article through before trying to destroy it? Honestly now.  They receive large amounts of money to do research in various things(which means they are considered notable for their achievements).  They've also have notable professors that have taught there in the past.  One of these professors won a Nobel prize after going to work there.  As for as printed media, the Economist published a bit about them .  I'm sure all the grants they get are mentioned in the news media somewhere, although they probably just mention the college not this section specifically by name which is why Google news search isn't showing it straight away.  If all high schools are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, I don't see why such a well established educational facility like this wouldn't be.   D r e a m Focus  15:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, I am looking for the evidence that others think so and as of now all I see is that Notable people have worked there but nobody thinks in and of its self the Faculty is notable. Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There is an article for every department. They are all very similar articles to the one been nominated, except UCL Faculty of Laws and is also the only one which seems notable. Mattg82 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good find. They should all be redirected to the Uni's article. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an article for each of the eight faculties, very few departments (of which there are far more) have an article.194.75.238.104 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   communicate 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable link farm. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, which is exactly what this article is.  A redirect back to the university article might be appropriate, but the individual department faculties do not pass WP:GNG.  All of them should be redirected/deleted.  Snotty Wong   communicate 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI: I have removed the inappropriate external links from all of these articles. Snotty Wong   prattle 00:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The appropriateness of the links is a separate issue from notability. We are not judging the quality of the article here. It is clearly a stub that needs work. The topic we are discussing is a long established (over 100 years) publishing research faculty that is the subject of (at least) two independently produced book chapters (here and here). It also gets hundreds of Times of London archive search hits, which is subscription based, but I assume at least one or two is appropriately covering the subject. This UCL faculty is also noted for initiating training in the field of chemical engineering. How does that not pass notability guidelines? I see every one of the criteria (significant coverage; reliable, independent, secondary sources; verifiability) as being satisfied. Which one(s) is not? We are not talking about merging a stub back to a parent, we are talking about Afd. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first book makes only passing referances to "Faculty of Engineering" nothing of any substance, the second book does not mention "Faculty of Engineering" once and is more about UCL than the Faculty of Engineering. So still looking for any significant coverage on the Faculty of Engineering. Codf1977 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Both chapters are completely devoted to the history of UCL engineering ...that is the Faculty of Engineering. CrazyPaco (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree, however that is a moot point, as to be WP:SIGCOV they have to be produced by independent sources and in both cases the authors are not independent. Codf1977 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." That is exactly what is there in "One hundred years...", which is a collections of papers presented at the American Chemical Society symposium in Toronto, Canada. Obviously part of this symposium dealt with the history of the field. Presentations at such symposiums are typically invited. These presentations were then collected and published in the volume overseen by an independent editor (affiliated with UT-Austin) and published by an independent academic publisher. Such a presentation would not even have been accepted to be made at such a symposium, or included for publication in this collected work, if UCL was not a historically notable faculty in the field of engineering. The authors were not writing about themselves. That chapter is absolutely not "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases" nor is it " self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement". It is ridiculous to even suggest it. According to the suggested logic of such affiliation negating notability, essentially every single published history about an academic field or about an institution would be ineligible for notability because the author was affiliated with their field or institution. Beyond that, every single academic paper ever published would be inelibile to denote nobility because the authors are affiliated with their field, and derive their living from publishing and acquiring grants with and from institutions and agencies dedicated to that field, which could be viewed as a COI.  It is nothing less than condemnation of the entire academic process, which contradicts the sources that Wikipedia has identified as the "most reliable". Both cited book chapters are produced by independent publishers, the other one having been edited together by a notable economic and social historian who published many histories about London.  CrazyPaco (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If they are reliable sources is not the issue - the issue is are they coverage that can be used to determine if the Faculty is notable; and WP:SIGCOV deals with that, and it says that the sources must be : "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject - and you are without doubt affiliated to the subject if you work for them. Codf1977 (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is certainly doubt as we see from this discussion. WP:SIGCOV is not a hard policy and every time it is proposed that it is made into one, the community rejects the proposal because there is a general consensus that some wiggle room is required for cases where we want want to include topics, regardless of the finer points of sourcing.  The concept of independence is not an absolute one, as Crazypaco explains, because all authors are associated with their topics in some way.  What we should consider is the objective of this guideline.  This is to exclude topics which are of little interest to our readership because they are too parochial or trivial.  In determining this, we should apply some common sense, as the guideline advises.  It does not seem sensible to suppose that a major academic institution of this sort has not been been noticed and is of no interest to our readership.  In any case, the search for sources is not complete and there are many more to find.  For example, checking recent news, we see that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was an engineering student at UCL.  This association is notable, being covered by numerous sources, and so it is grist to our mill.  The more one digs, the more one finds and it is not sensible to be deleting the article when the topic has proved so amenable to thorough research. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article now has many more than two sources and so your point is moot. Your theory is, in any case, not what is is said by WP:SIGCOV nor is it what is meant as it would lead to the absurd conclusion that a history of America would not be accepted as independent if it were written by an American historian.  You need to have some overt reason to discount intellectual independence, not a vague insinuation. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like the authors of the section working for UCL ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To take one example, Don Freshwater did not work for UCL. It is interesting to note the many illustrious academics for whom we have yet to have articles.  I have created three like this so far and could probably find dozens if I had time.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As a followup - can you please detail here what links you think now show WP:SIGCOV as it is not clear. All the ones listed on this page have been shown not to be and of the ones one the article page that I have looked at none discusses the Faculty in any detail. Codf1977 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All the sources cited seem satisfactory for our purposes and the article itself thus serves as a good list. In judging the quality of these sources according to our general practise, it may help to compare with another article such as Matthew Yusuf Smith &mdash; a BLP which you created and still maintain.  We observe that much of the content of that article is sourced to the blog written by the subject himself.  Most of the other sources seem equally dubious.  Please see The Golden Rule. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing the validity of the sources in the article, I freely accept that self published sources or sources close to the subject can be used in the article, just not for demonstrating notability. As I said, however, can you please list the sources that show significant coverage of the Faculty, it is mine and others contention that they do not exist. Codf1977 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) point about article I have created, not appropriate for here so addressed on User talk:Colonel Warden
 * Sources have been provided in abundance. The problem seems to be that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

But not ones that show that others think it is notable - see my list below. Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The nominator seems to have this right, and as it stands, this article has no independent sourcing since all but one source is from the university itself. AniMate  15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment is self-contradictory in that you acknowledge an independent source and then say there there are none. More sources are being found and have now been added to the article and so your comment is now even more counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Each of the books linked above ( and for the avoidance of doubt about which ones I'm referring to) has a chapter about the subject, so has significant coverage, is from a major academic publisher, so is reliable, and is independent of UCL. All of the requirements of the general notability guideline, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", have therefore been met. I would advise anyone who claims that these chapters are not about the article subject to actually read the sources rather than search for a specific phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read them and disagree with you. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what are those chapters about, if not this article's subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * They may as you say be published by a major academic publisher, but as are of no use in determining notability as the authors of those sections are not independent of UCL. Codf1977 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG, independence requires that authors not be talking about themselves, as in an autobiography, or that the material should not be promotional in nature, such as an advertisement. Neither of these considerations apply here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But they are talking about the organisation they work for. Codf1977 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the case for all sources. In any case, it is common for experts to be intimately associated with their subject.  This is not a problem provided that there is editorial oversight and if they have professional reputations for accuracy and good ethics to maintain. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But as per WP:SIGCOV it excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject and all the sources provided by you and others claiming it is significant have been shown to fail that, either written by a member of staff, a directory, or just not about UCL. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No. WP:SIGCOV provides a detailed list of what it is talking about: "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases".  The sources provided are none of these, being mostly academic histories and papers of the highest quality and written by a variety of authors. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes actually look at the four words prior to where you chose to start your quote it says "but not limited to". Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The authors of those book chapters may have been associated with UCL, but Continuum International and Springer have chosen to publish the books, so validating them independently. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the validaty is not the issue, it is the notability of the Faculty, and if no one independent of UCL is writing about it, then it is not. Those books fail WP:SIGCOV Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added a bit more to the history section.194.75.238.104 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your sterling effort which is much appreciated. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If there are articles on the departments, is there any reason why information shouldn't be merged there?--RadioFan (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are ten different departments in this faculty. If we break the information down to that level then we will still need this article to provide a framework or structure within which to cover each department.  Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would this article be needed? Notable things such as the first Professor of Engineering can be well covered in that person's bio article and the department's article.  Summarizing information like this in yet another article seems like over-coverage.  A "framework" is not necessary.--RadioFan (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles form a natural hierarchy or web. The titles such as this one's are useful search terms and so assist navigation.  As more sources are discovered, information is slotted into its natural place.  In this way, the encyclopedia grows and is made comprehensive.  Deleting elements, as you suggest, is disruptive to this and there is nothing to be gained.  As the article already exists, it is you that must make a case to remove it.  I'm not seeing one. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Searching Google news archive for "UCL" and "engineering sciences" shows results. Sometimes the word faculty is used before, and sometimes after "engineering sciences".  Anyone not convinced this article should be saved, or want to find something to help convince them, can sort through that.  Hit Google book search from there and thre are more results to wade through.   D r e a m Focus  15:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been through that list, and they are mostly just mentions, (in the form Jim Bloggs works at ......) nothing of any significance - it is clear that it exists.Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a first order division of a major university, and our practice has been to keep all of such. It's a matter of practicality--essentially the same reason why we keep law schools and the like. WP:N is a guideline, which only really applies to the overall coverage of something--how we divide it up is less consequential than whether we cover it at all.  Articles of divisions like this can and should be greatly expanded, for all the individual departments and research centers comprising it should have paragraphs--though not separate articles. I am not in favor of indefinite inclusion of separate articles for small subunits, biut the inclusion of articles like this are a reasonable compromise.  .  (For individual departments, it's another matter,  but I think the star quality departments at the most important universities should have pages. I have previously voted to delete most of them submitted here, which do not really reach this standard, but then I can immediately think of about 100 we do not have, but certainly ought to.)    DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actual you are wrong on the norm - as the nom says, the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines are clear that is not the case. Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your project guidelines are just your own private fantasy and are not an official Wikipedia guideline nor do they represent general practise. For example, see Category:Departments_of_the_University_of_Cambridge &mdash; over 50 different articles for the departments of that university.  Or Category:Harvard University schools.  And so on.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this AfD is all about the notability of the Faculty and those advocating deletion on the grounds of lack of of any demonstrable reliable sources, independent of UCL or the Faculty, covering the Faculty in significant detail, I thought it would be best to list the sources provided both here and on the article

at the AfD 

on the article (as of this version)

So it is clear that the Faculty has no significant coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So it is clear that the faculty has plenty of significant coverage. Your objections are laughable as units like the Jill Dando Institute are part of the faculty and so you seem to be simultaneously arguing that the UCL can't be broken into components and yet, if we have a source about a component, it must be addressed at the level of the component.  This is inconsistent, just as your nitpicking about sources is inconsistent with your own practise elsewhere where you are content to use blogs in support of a junk BLP.  Wikipedia is not a game and so it is not about winning.  Please use your time here more constructively. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are none so blind that will not see - It has no significant coverage as to be coverage of any entity it has to at least mention that entity by name otherwise what you are doing is synthesis. Your argument here has gone from claiming that "this which covers the topic in detail and tells us about its methods of teaching engineering" which has absolutely nothing to do with UCL to trying to argue the point based on other articles I have created/worked on - it is frankly your position that is totally laughable.
 * My position is clear that any article must meet the relevant guideline for significant coverage about its self; if the smallest department at a university is meets the inclusion guidelines then that does not mean that every department up the chain does. Codf1977 (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mentions by name are not required because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a directory. What we discuss in our articles are topics .  The essential nature of this topic is engineering at UCL.  This has evolved over time from the earliest pioneering to the current comprehensive and detailed structure.  To present a historical perspective, as is our goal, we cannot be so literal minded because organisations commonly change their name and detailed structure quite often and it is impractical to spawn new articles every time they do this. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable article about some academic department of UCL. Reasons for deletion have been clearly specified above 87.194.84.46 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the above ed. seems to be essentially a spa devoted to increasing the comparative coverage of another UK university.   DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP address belongs to an ISP in London so the possibility of multiple editors exits but does not seem likely in this case. The editor definitely has an interest in higher education in Great Britain, but I wouldn't call this a single purpose account since it goes back over a year and has edited multiple articles about multiple universities.--RadioFan (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per DGG's rationale.  UCL is notable, how the articles surrounding it are organized is not a discussion for AfD, and having a separate article for this unit is not irrational.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I guess that it's fairly predictable that I will take this view, since I started the article. My view was then and remains that this is a natural and logical break out article from the main UCL article, where space for details of the historical development, activities, faculty and alumni of this and each of the other seven constituent faculties of UCL is necessarily limited. Furthermore my view is that this faculty is sufficiently notable for an article in its own right. In my view this notability is not merely due to it being one of the constituent faculties of a large and important university, but also because of the historical and continuning importance and notability of the faculty's activities (which obviously includes the activities of the departments and centres within it), its significant faculty and alumni and its record of educational innovation. A number of examples of such have now been added to the history section of the article, together with high quality citations. I am in no doubt that more could be easily be added.


 * The point has been made above that the information in this article would be better broken up into separate articles for each of the departments and centres in the faculty. My view on this is that, firstly, such articles (with a couple of exceptions) do not yet exist, whilst this one does. Secondly, this article would still serve as a logical structuring article and break out from the main UCL article, even if all of the departments had separate articles - in fact it would then arguably be even more useful to readers. Thirdly, departments at universities tend to change over time, and to create a very large number of third level articles which rigidly reflect the current departmental structure creates the likelihood of regular mass restructurings of articles of their content being required. Of course faculties evolve over time as well, but with just eight any evolution of articles which might be required by, say, a merging of two faculties, would be a far more straightforward task. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see the two book sources as independent because they were published by independent publishers. The actual authors being involved with UCL is not so important. Seems best to cover the topic at this title, but a rename to say 'Engineering at UCL' can sort out that problem. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "Engineering at University College London" would be an even better title. We shouldn't assume that a reader would recognise the acronym "UCL". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Book sources would seem to be independent enough for our purposes. It does need to be renamed (I'm an engineering faculty member and I had no idea what UCL was) Hobit (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * *Comment Could we not just have redirects from Engineering at UCL, Engineering at University College London, University College London Faculty of Engineering Sciences etc and keep the article at common name? Rangoon11 (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, articles often have many redirects pointing to them to cater for alternative titles. The move function is an easy way of creating such an alternative name.  There's often a significant amount of fuss and dispute about the primary name though.  Queen Victoria used to be my favourite example but I find that this has now recently been moved to this obvious title &mdash; it was formerly Victoria of the United Kingdom. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the primary article name is up for debate, but as UCL is a disambiguation page, "Engineering at University College London" or "University College London Faculty of Engineering Sciences" probably makes the most sense IMO. Hobit (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Whilst the proper name of the university as a whole is University College London (though very often shortened to UCL, including by the university itself e.g. in its logo), the proper name of the faculty is UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Phil Bridger's comment makes the most sense to me of anyone's here. With that kind of coverage (and it's the publisher not the author that defines whether or not the book is independent) this appears to meet WP:GNG. In the absence of a specific guideline against this type of article, I can't see a good reason to delete this. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.