Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wollongong Faculty of Law, Humanities and The Arts


 * 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   speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger One ping only 13:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

University of Wollongong Faculty of Law, Humanities and The Arts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that it meets the notability required by UNIGUIDE. Pam D  10:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator: suggest redirect to University of Wollongong. Pam  D  10:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Warden (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I advanced an argument for deletion, and proposed a redirect, which is a deletion of all the content of the page- not the same as merging or moving. Doesn't that come within AfD? (I won't raise this same question on the other 2 similar pages, to avoid repetition, but will be interested in an answer here). Should I just have boldly redirected? I thought if I did so it might be quickly reverted, so came here to get a consensus on whether there should be a redirect rather than an article for the faculty. Pam  D  13:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Deletion is a specific function of the Wikimedia software. It doesn't actually delete the content but, instead, makes it unavailable to ordinary editors and readers.  Because it has this effect, it is not possible for ordinary editors to revert it in the usual way, as they can with other edits.  This is why the function is tightly controlled, being only performed by admins with the sanction of AFD and similar processes.  Redirection is not the same because it may be performed by means of an ordinary edit.  People keep trying to expand the scope of AFD to add weight to their edits but this is improper because AFD is already overloaded with poorly attended discussions and AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * * OK, thanks for explanation. I take the point that converting to a redirect, while over-writing all text, is not the same as deletion. I see from Guide to deletion that an article under AfD must not be turned into a redirect, so I'll withdraw this, wait for the AfD to be closed, then convert the article to a redirect and see what happens. Pam  D  20:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn by nominator, per the discussion above. Pam  D  20:04, 12 October 2013 (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.