Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Functional Food Centre at Oxford Brookes University

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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Food Centre at Oxford Brookes University

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

Highly promotional and at best borderline notable. (It might be possible to merge a single short paragraph to the university, but the merge was objected to.) The refs are notices or PR--even the article in theTelegraph is essentially a press release. Promotional language and unsourced adjectives of phrase throughout; long list of their services, extensive use of jargon. Note that this is not Oxford University , but the school formerly known as Oxford City Technical School. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure but maybe redirect to Oxford Brookes University#Specialist Study where it is mentioned - I wanted to hear from other people until commenting but my searches didn't find much sources here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator includes one distinctly bad reason for deletion and, in my opinion, rather overstates his main reason. Whether a British university was already a university before 1992 or was, like Oxford Brookes University, up until then (or later) a polytechnic or college can still correlate fairly well (though not totally) with their current standing - but what they were called in or before the 1960s is effectively irrelevant. In league tables, Oxford Brookes tends to come through slightly below average for all British universities and among the better former polytechnics. And even borderline notability should trump promotionalism - provided that the article not only can be, but is, rewritten to show that notability without any of the promotionalism. Having said that, it comes nowhere near saving this article. The best research centres at an average British university would probably be considered to be average or somewhat below at Oxford University (and be rather unlikely to be notable enough for a standalone article) - but a check on Research Excellence Framework results and Oxford Brookes's own webpages suggests that it does not even come close to this. It is apparently one of three research centres within Oxford Brookes's Faculty of Health and Life Sciences - but the Faculty seems to have completely ignored it when making its REF submission (which itself was not one of the best from Oxford Brookes). While it might be possible for Oxford Brookes to have a research centre notable enough for a standalone article, this clearly isn't it. PWilkinson (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested since August 2014. There's no evidence of separate notability. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete the mention on the Oxford Brookes article is enough and I don't see much further material that could be merged, the article appears to be a promotional piece for a non-notable research centre Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. None of the sources, especially the few independent ones, set apart any encyclopedic notability for a research center. Appears to mostly be a promotion page, so probably best to just delete. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two reliable, independent sources - articles in The Telegraph and The Oxford Times - that contain more than adequate depth of coverage for an organization. I'm mystified by @DGG's claim that the Telegraph article is "essentially a press release". A promotional tone is not among the reasons for deletion unless it is spam, which this is not. It seems to me that the NPOV issues are easily fixed. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article seems, on the face of it, a reliable source, although it is in a magazine (Next Generation Food) which seems to have disappeared after around 2012. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @DGG: @SwisterTwister: @PWilkinson: @Aloneinthewild: @Kingofaces43: I have completely rewritten the article, and it should be obvious now that the topic merits an article. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RockMagnetist (talk · contribs)'s rewrite. The subject has received substantial coverage in The Daily Telegraph, The Oxford Times, and the magazine Next Generation Food.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Functional Food Centre at Oxford Brookes University to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2015 (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.