Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of the Philippines Information Technology Development Center

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Information Technology Development Center[edit]

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

This mostly promotional piece still has no viable references after 8 years. A number of other recent articles on subunits of this University have been turned into redirects, merged, or deleted, and this one seems no different. As a subunit, it is unlikely to have attracted independent notability (and in fact appears to have not done so; see Wikipedia:College and university article advice for more on this). Please avoid using WP:LONGTIME for any Keep votes, yes? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this is basically an academic department in a university, nd such departments are not notable unless they aretruly world-famous, which this is not. Furthermore, it's essentially their catalog page, with a full lists of course and similar detail, and hence inappropriate for an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete it almost looks like an advert for this unit. not to mention the sprawling lists and external links. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2016 (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.