Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdisciplinary Design for the Built Environment

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 delete and redirect to Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interdisciplinary Design for the Built Environment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This university course has no notability independent of the college that runs it, the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Following discussion (not very extensive), I'd merged it to that page. The page creator has unmerged it, so we're back to square one. This appears to be promotion by a determined and connected editor; we don't tolerate promotion. We don't (fortunately!) have a page on every individual university course of study, and there's no reason that I can see why we should have this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, article has been merged and we can do away with all the promo stuff. Ajf773 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per Ajf773. Paul W (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the course relates to its interdisciplinary nature and its focus on soft skills such as leadership and teamwork (both of which are relatively unusual since most masters courses promote technical specialism) and its origins and original syllabus in the ideas of the leading structural engineer of his day, Ove Arup. The course was a response to a meeting of the great and the good from the contruction industry professions held at Madingley Hall in 1991, which again differentiates it from most masters courses which lack this broad support and input. Second, the wikipedia entry is simply a factual account of the course and its operation. To call it promotional is a biased and unhelpful criticism. Third, given the nature of wikipedia, I can't actually see why there shouldn't be entries for every university course of study. Why not? They are not forced down everyone's throat - you look at them only if you are interested. The entry does also feature other similar courses at Oxford, Hong Kong etc. A question: are there justifications for separate entries for a musician's albums - or should they all be redirects to the musicians themselves? Fourth, all wikipedia entires are the result of an individual taking an interest in a topic which is clearly notable and writing about it. That's all I've done here. Finally, I can't help wondering whether your actions reflect Britain's anti-intellectualism - maybe you just don't like Cambridge University very much? In which case, I can assure you that the course has been very catholic in its recruitment, and is by no means full of English public-school boys. It's a course for the rest of us, devised to upskill those working in the built environment, not traditionally a sector that attracts high fliers. I am really unhappy at the two of you PaulW and justlettersandnumbers taking it upon yourselves to censor this entry which is informative and factual, supported by references and footnotes, features competitor courses, and, surely, is entirely harmless in the great order of things. Torino-Topolino (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.