Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep and Moved to Center for Catholic Studies (University of St. Thomas). Rewrite/cleanup needed. Pastordavid (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Studies

Catholic Studies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article reads more like an entry out of a course catalog or brochure than an encylopedia entry on the University of St. Thomas CathStudies program. Futhermore, rather than covering the discipline and impact of Catholic Studies, which is featured at numerous colleges around the country, it discusses only the UST program. Apparently, it was created by a user seeking only to promote the program (username: catholicstudies). I am a Catholic Stuides major at UST, but Wikipedia is not a guidebook, and I don't believe this article has any merit at all as presently written. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. An article on Catholic studies in general would be great, but there is little salvageable material in this article. Some editor(s) have obviously put a lot of work into this but, just as the nominator says, it amounts in its present form to nothing more than a brochure. This is totally unencyclopedic: such material belongs on a page for prospective students on a school's website, not here. Nick Graves (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Change recommendation to Keep, rename and rewrite. There are at least two reliable sources that provide independent, significant coverage of the program, so it seems notable enough. Elkman's suggested renaming to University of St. Thomas Center for Catholic Studies is the most suitable option, due to its specificity. A future article on Catholic studies would be appropriate only if it focused on the discipline in general, rather than a specific program. Nick Graves (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment At best this is a move to Center for Catholic Studies. It certainly is not a general article on Catholic studies as a discipline. --Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • transwiki to wikiversity--Emesee (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • DELETE It is unlike any other wikipedia article i have seen before. Not up to Wikipedia's standards. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice, as all above; an essay or a brochure about a particular programme. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to something like Center for Catholic Studies or Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas, so that that title makes it clear that it's about the Catholic Studies program at only one university. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (If kept, the move needs to be done.) This is a course catalog or advertisement; it is not an encyclopedia article. (At least it isn't a blatanat copyright violation of the web-pages, which is about all it has going for it.) No independent sourcing is present to indicate that an encyclopedia article is possible. Very few specific programs at a college merit an encyclopedia entry, and I see nothing to make me think this is one of them. GRBerry 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename and rewrite. Delete (or move if delete fails). Obvious advertisement. TrickyApron (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite - Is the subject of secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject, like the St. Paul Pioneer Press [1] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune [2] [3]. --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite as Oakshade said. An article has to start somewhere, and whereas many articles start with a one-sentence "stub" (in Wikipedia terminology) this one started with comprehensive information on one program in the subject. The rewrite should remove specifics like course numbers, but keep topics like study in Rome that may be common to similar programs at many universities. Fg2 (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, rewrite and move. The article as it is currently written doesn't have any merit, however there is significant independent coverage with which to rewrite the article. A better title would be Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas. The article needs a bit of work but it should be kept. ~ Eóin (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename to University of St. Thomas Center for Catholic Studies (a more official and less ambiguous name), then rewrite to prune a lot of the material about specific courses that need to be taken. The program itself sounds like it's notable, and the study-abroad program, Master of Arts degree, and the two institutes appear to be a relatively distinctive feature of this center. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree - Rename and prune of the excessive detail of particular modules. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Rename, and Stubbify. Agree present article is not an appropriate Wikipedia article or appropriately named, but a renamed article that refers specifically to the University of St. Thomas Center for Catholic Studies would be appropriate because there are sufficient reliable sources on the program to meet the relevant notability criteria. Accordingly, renamed article should be stubbified and OR and self-promotional catalog-type material removed. --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Wikify: Great topic, definitely good for Wikipedia, but bear in mind that it reads more like a guidebook, let's fix it up, maybe? THE KC (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete; one particular program at one particular school (which already has it's own, fine article) does not need to be covered in such detail; we are not a course catalog or an advertising brochure repository. A general article on the topic would be interesting; but this is not that and doesn't really have much information that could become the basis of a general article, in my opinion -- perhaps other schools have widely different criteria. I'd also look for more reliable sources beyond just the Minnesota newspapers, since this is a Minnesota school I'm not surprised those exist, but does anyone else take notice? At the very least rename, per others above, without redirecting this term. -- phoebe / (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a general topic. It is salvageable and notable. FYI: I'm an ex-RC. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (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.