Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Reading Science & Technology Centre


 * 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   merge. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

University of Reading Science & Technology Centre
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable part of campus at the University of Reading, no independent sources to demonstrate notability. There's no reason to have a separate article, any usable content can be merged to University of Reading. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - Subject does not appear to require its own article. Merge into University of Reading and/or Whiteknights Park. Snottywong (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge: to University of Reading. Not independently notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * merge as usual for these.  .    DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to the main page; no need to dwell on this one. TerriersFan (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Retain: There is plenty of precedent (see Oxford Science Park or Cambridge Science Park, or Category:Science parks) that suggests this kind of university private sector technology transfer hybrid is regarded as notable. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But this one is not a science park in the same sense - it is just one building, not a collection of science-based companies. It is no more notable than any university department. So, merge per others. Yob  Mod  12:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts you base this call on are not quite correct. The subject of this article is a collection of science-based companies, albeit in one large building. The UKSPA, which represents the interests of science parks in the UK, certainly lists it as such. It isn't a university department in the normal sense of that term, so a notability comparison based on university departments is comparing apples with pears. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've now added a cited reference to the UKSPA's entry for the Science & Technology Centre, plus one to UNESCO's listing of it, which means this article now satisfies the need for secondary sources. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Extra references don't hurt, but the ones you added do nothing to establish notability and aren't really the sort of references that work well with WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy I was looking to satisfy was WP:ORG and its requirement for secondary sources. The two I quoted were from a UK trade association and UNESCO, neither of which strike me as being 'unreliable'. Admittedly neither says much about the subject, but that isn't the point when trying to satisfy's WP:ORG's quite reasonable requirement for some verification of notability independent of the organisation itself. As that policy says, once notability is established, primary sources can then be used to fill in the detail. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way, those other articles aren't really a credit to the notion that we ought to have articles on every "science park" a university creates. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with that one. Perhaps we shouldn't have articles on science parks, but that is a bigger question that needs to be addressed somewhere other than here. Picking them off one by one isn't the way to do it. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2009 (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.