Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of civil engineering schools

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. Wikipedia is not a list or directory. I do echo DGG's comments here though; if properly restarted as an article about notable engineering schools, or if the list can be otherwise expanded to include non-U.S. facilities, it may be salvageable. seicer | talk | contribs 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of civil engineering schools

Pretty much every general university grants civil engineering degrees, so it seems pointless to list them all. Could be salvaged if it were restricted to those institutions which are highly ranked (like Law school rankings in the United States), but probably best just to delete and start over. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are a number of lists like this in various subjects, sometimes embedded in articles. I am not at all sure what to do about them. It does seem like a directory, but on the other hand such lists are surprisingly difficult to find on the web. Online programs, individual programs, sure. Non-advertising comprehensive lists, no. Not even the American Society for Civil Engineers has a list that I could find--but they link eventually to a search site at [ABET which would be the proper US external link for engineering etc. articles in general. Not all subjects are covered, and for some disciplines it's much less obvious, if not impossible. some articles here have screened for quality by limiting to PhD granting programs, but it would seem more useful if we are going to list them to list those and the lower level ones in separate sections. This would be an exception to general policy--it seems of all people to do this sort of list, we are the best staffed. Bu it can be seen as an almanac function, not a directory, and WP does cover such many of the sort of things one finds in almanacs. I'd leave this, pending discussion. Of course, it would be most useful with links to the university or college of engineering (or whatever) article, and a reference to the program, though one could of course get there eventually from the links in the university or college article. Maybe we should be useful, when we're needed. DGG (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for one thing this violates WP:LC points 3 and 8, and additionally, the list only includes North American schools. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that last point at least is a reason for expansion, not deletion. I should have mentioned it. If expanded that way, it will collect scattered information no current place on the web or to my knowledge elsewhere provides. DGG (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That last point seems very like WP:EFFORT as arguments go. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, its not the work put in already, but the possibilities. While, it's better than anywhere else but it still needs further work; as you said above, it's incomplete & will be more valuable if properly expanded. DGG (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (slightly weak, as there is some justification for an exception to general policy.) There is no doubt that directories are useful, but I am leery of using apparent unavailability of another resource as a basis for inclusion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator -- a large enough proportions of universities offer civil engineering, that there seems to be little point in having a list of civil engineering schools, it will have too much overlap with the list of universities in general. --SJK (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a directory. We66er (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2008 (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.