Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Career Resource Center: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:27, 16 January 2013 editDirtlawyer1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers88,853 editsm copyedit← Previous edit Revision as of 13:43, 17 January 2013 edit undoJccort (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,748 edits RedirectNext edit →
Line 9: Line 9:
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. &#9733;&#9734; ]&#9734;&#9733; 09:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)</small> :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. &#9733;&#9734; ]&#9734;&#9733; 09:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)</small>
*'''Redirect'''. Subject is clearly notable based on the results of a simple Google News search and the WP:GNG criteria, but I question whether there is enough general interest encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article. Any encyclopedic content not already duplicated by the J. Wayne Reitz Student Union or main University of Florida articles should be merged to the main University of Florida article, with a section-specific redirect to the same. Career placement ''is'' a key function of the university worthy of mention in the main article. As for the subject not being "worth a redirect," I gently remind Andrew that redirects are cheap (see essay "]"). ] (]) 09:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC) *'''Redirect'''. Subject is clearly notable based on the results of a simple Google News search and the WP:GNG criteria, but I question whether there is enough general interest encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article. Any encyclopedic content not already duplicated by the J. Wayne Reitz Student Union or main University of Florida articles should be merged to the main University of Florida article, with a section-specific redirect to the same. Career placement ''is'' a key function of the university worthy of mention in the main article. As for the subject not being "worth a redirect," I gently remind Andrew that redirects are cheap (see essay "]"). ] (]) 09:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Redirect'''. Should be redirected to an appropriate article. Information provided is informative and notable according to ]. ] (]) 13:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:43, 17 January 2013

University of Florida Career Resource Center

University of Florida Career Resource Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

That this was ranked as good by Princeton Review doesn't mean the resource center gets to have its own article. I've never seen an article on a notable career resource center, and this is not one that deserves it. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Subject is clearly notable based on the results of a simple Google News search and the WP:GNG criteria, but I question whether there is enough general interest encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article. Any encyclopedic content not already duplicated by the J. Wayne Reitz Student Union or main University of Florida articles should be merged to the main University of Florida article, with a section-specific redirect to the same. Career placement is a key function of the university worthy of mention in the main article. As for the subject not being "worth a redirect," I gently remind Andrew that redirects are cheap (see essay "Misplaced Pages:Redirects are cheap"). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Should be redirected to an appropriate article. Information provided is informative and notable according to Princeton Review. Jccort (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Categories: