- 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 to Heriot-Watt University. While I might wish for a bit more explicit consensus on the merge target there appears to be a solid consensus favoring a merge and the only target mention is Heriot-Watt University. Also a quick reminder that only material that is properly sourced or completely uncontroversial should be merged per WP:V and WP:CITE. It's time to close this and move on. Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Masters in Strategic Project Management (European)
- Masters in Strategic Project Management (European) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The program does not establish why it itself is notable separately from the universities that are offering it (e.g. we do not have a have an article about a Harvard MBA specifically, rather an article about the degree generally and then one about Harvard Business School). The given sources appear to largely target the universities themselves and those that discuss the program are written by a professor at one of the schools that issues the degree or are just program rankings. Mifter ( talk) 04:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- I would personally merge the what notable information exists into the parent university articles until such time as the degree program establishes it itself is notable outside just its parent organizations ( WP:NOTINHERITED). Mifter ( talk) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 04:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 04:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 04:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Mifter. We have articles on courses like Master of Business Administration, M. Tech Clinical engineering, Bachelor of Science in Information Technology and so forth. Why do you think this is different from these? This course too is offered by multiple institutions, and has been structured under the EU's higher education initiative. Lourdes 15:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Lourdes, as I mentioned in the nom I believe this is different because something like a
Master of Business Administration (MBA) as a degree program is independently notable with the degree itself getting high levels of coverage in reliable third party sources and is offered by a very large number (hundreds) of universities whereas this program is only offered by this single consortium of universities (that I can see) and it is a single, unique program (If any university creates a unique new degree program independently or as part of a consortium it does not automatically deserve an article until that degree program is itself sufficiently notable.). If any part of the degree program is notable I would argue it should be merged into the articles for the university's offering it until there is sufficient coverage to establish that this unique program is independently notable. Similarly a
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology is also offered widely, though our article on it could use work and it needs more sources. Finally, after looking at the linked article, I would argue that
M. Tech Clinical engineering might suffer from the same issues that this article does as it is appears to be a unique program offered by a single consortium but I am still looking at it. In sum, something like a MBA as a degree program independently passes our GNG due to its heavy coverage as a general degree while this degree program with its primary distinguishing factor being that it is offered by a consortium of universities does not appear to satisfy notability just as a degree program.
Mifter (
talk) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ok. I understand your viewpoint. I would have preferred that before this Afd, a merge discussion could have been initiated on the article's talk page as an alternative to deletion. But now that this is here, in my opinion, as the EU has withdrawn its support to the program (www.mspme.org) and as the actual MSPME degree is offered by only Heriot-Watt University, we could Merge the main contents to the HW Univ page. If you agree, you could consider withdrawing this nom and we could both then be bold and start a discussion on the article's talk page to merge the article, and finish it up boldly post consensus. What do you think? Thanks, Lourdes 21:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Lourdes, as I mentioned in the nom I believe this is different because something like a
Master of Business Administration (MBA) as a degree program is independently notable with the degree itself getting high levels of coverage in reliable third party sources and is offered by a very large number (hundreds) of universities whereas this program is only offered by this single consortium of universities (that I can see) and it is a single, unique program (If any university creates a unique new degree program independently or as part of a consortium it does not automatically deserve an article until that degree program is itself sufficiently notable.). If any part of the degree program is notable I would argue it should be merged into the articles for the university's offering it until there is sufficient coverage to establish that this unique program is independently notable. Similarly a
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology is also offered widely, though our article on it could use work and it needs more sources. Finally, after looking at the linked article, I would argue that
M. Tech Clinical engineering might suffer from the same issues that this article does as it is appears to be a unique program offered by a single consortium but I am still looking at it. In sum, something like a MBA as a degree program independently passes our GNG due to its heavy coverage as a general degree while this degree program with its primary distinguishing factor being that it is offered by a consortium of universities does not appear to satisfy notability just as a degree program.
Mifter (
talk) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Mifter. There are other pages with erasmus mundus programs:
/info/en/?search=International_Master_of_Science_in_Rural_Development Additionally, these programs are part of the education in europe and they act as an independent organization e.g. There is a Stanford Online page /info/en/?search=Stanford_Online The program runs now in multiple versions; one version Heriot-Watt & Umea and second version Politecnico and Glasgow Nkalyvio —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Nkalyvio. Thank you for the links and information and welcome to Wikipedia! After looking at them though, I am not sure how they are directly relevant to this article's notability. That we have other articles that may be similar does not establish why this specific degree program is sufficiently notable to have its own article as notability is determined on a case-by-case basis and is not inherited. Further, Stanford Online is not a degree program, it appears to be an online version of the University and International Master of Science in Rural Development does not cite any sources and itself may not be notable enough for inclusion though that is beyond the scope of the discussion here. I'd be happy to discuss further should you have any questions. Best, Mifter ( talk) 17:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Mifter. Just wanted to leave a gentle reminder ping to consider the Merge suggestion I had given above, to enable this Afd to reach a consensus (or get re-listed again, if you don't agree). Warmly, Lourdes 12:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Lourdes. Thanks for the note, I was out and didn't have a chance to check in on Wikipedia for a few days. I'm happy to merge the article (in fact it would be my preferred outcome as I mention above), but am wondering your thoughts about how we should proceed. We could let the AfD run its course and have an uninvolved admin/editor close it as merge, have someone close it now as merge, or withdraw and open another discussion to discuss the merger. I believe the third option would be redundant considering we appear to have an emerging consensus here towards merge and would be fine with the other options. Also, if you see another path forward, I'm happy to hear it, my goal is to resolve this as smoothly as possible while trying to avoid being overly bureaucratic. Best, Mifter ( talk) 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Merge: per developing consensus not yet expressed. The AFD has started so why not just formalize a "merge" consensus? Otr500 ( talk) 00:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Merge following the consensus rationale emerging above: Best to conclude this AfD and allow the merger proposal to be carried through. AllyD ( talk) 08:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Administrator Comment There appears to be a consensus favoring some sort of merge. However I am not altogether clear as to what article(s) are to be on the receiving end of the merge. Once that is settled I will be happy close this discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Ad Orientem, I understand what you're saying. My proposal was to merge this to Heriot-Watt University. I presume that Mifter, Otr500, and AllyD are referring to the same article. Thanks, Lourdes 16:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- If merged to Heriot-Watt University there needs to be at least on source tying (connecting) the two together.
Otr500 (
talk) 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- There are quite a few Otr500. If you check the article, you'll find sources like this. The main University source also gives good details. As I have already mentioned above in my reply to Mifter, it seems that the European sponsorship has come to an end, which is confirmed by the primary website http://www.mspme.org/, which also mentions that it's only the Heriot-Watt university which gives a new renamed "Master of Science in Strategic Project Management" certification from hereon. Thanks, Lourdes 05:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I see there are primary sources and my comments were "just" that merging to "Heriot-Watt University" should be sourced in that article as the entire Programme structure section, that already includes 'Master of Science in Strategic Project Management", is currently unsourced.
Otr500 (
talk) 08:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I agree. Lourdes 12:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- If merged to Heriot-Watt University there needs to be at least on source tying (connecting) the two together.
Otr500 (
talk) 02:11, 21 January 2018 (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.