Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Applied Science, UC Davis

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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Applied Science, UC Davis

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

This department does not seem to be notable independently from its university. There does not seem to be anything noteworthy of merging in the UC Davis article, nor would the title be a plausible redirect for UC Davis.T R 10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC) T R 10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— I found a number of independent sources and added them to the article. It could still use some stubbing down, but I think it meets the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those source seem more of case for a brief mention in the articles on the Livermore lab and Teller than a standalone article. T R 10:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look, maybe? I haven't even started with the newspapers yet.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was going to propose a merge to UC Davis, but it turns out that this was a program jointly sponsored by two institutions - UC Davis and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory - so that a merge to either seems inappropriate. The facility does appear to be notable, thanks to Alf.laylah's good work adding references. Since it was a unique type of operation, not merely a department of a university, I think it deserves its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2013 (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.