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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer University School of Medicine[edit]

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

I suggest that the information in this article be merged into Mercer University and this article redirected there. The School of Medicine does not appear to be notable on its own per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There are no independent and reliable sources that represent significant coverage of the school itself, only notable affiliates of the school and university or the university itself. A Google News search provides two articles that, in my opinion, do not represent independent and significant coverage. A Google News archive search produces coverage from local news sources and per WP:ORG, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." OlYeller21^Talktome 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merger seems appropriate. This is normally proposed by the use of mergeto and mergefrom templates and talk page discussion though, not AfD. Is there a reason you didn't do that this time, OlYeller? LadyofShalott 01:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the proposition for the merging of this article with the article for Mercer University. As author of this article, I believe that it represents an organization that has notability sufficient to warrant address with an independent article. To begin, I believe notability is inherently warranted due to the fact that this organization is an U.S. allopathic medical school, of which there are only 131, and has trained over 1000 licensed Doctors of Medicine who currently provide healthcare in the United States. Please visit the List of medical schools in the United States article and notice that most schools have an independent article. I understand that this institution is relatively young, at 30 years of age, and as such has less media coverage due to less abundant translational research being performed there, but I do not think this fact precludes the development of an independent article nor does it imply lack of notability. I noticed that "OlYeller21" alluded to a lack of media coverage in his Google News archive search, but I believe he is interpreting the WP:ORG too liberally in regard to his interpretation of "local media". As MUSM is a state school with a primary care mission it is not surprising that there is not more attention received by the lay press outside of the state of Georgia, but it should be noted that the attention in Georgia is not localized to areas only surrounding the school, but that the school has been given attention by large journals such as the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Additionally, as MUSM is an academic institution, a more accurate measure of notability might be a Google scholar search rather than attention from lay press, as this implies notability in the academic environment. Also, since the initial proposal for deletion of the article, I have added a reference to another external, notable, and unbiased source (The Journal of Academic Medicine, published by the American Association of Medical Colleges) to the reference list. • emc7171
As a note, the initial proposal was and is not for deletion. Merge and redirect is simply a possible outcome of an WP:AfD.

You've pointed out that the school itself doesn't not receive national coverage. You've also essentially pointed out that it's expected due to its size. You go on to to say that we should ignore this. I simply don't agree that we should. To me, that would be directly contrary to WP:N.

I'm not suggesting that there is no important information about the school itself, simply that the school is not independently notable from the university and that the information found in the article can be placed in the university's article instead.

At this point, I think the best way to establish notability would be to investigate the school's publications. Again, if they're published by the university and not the school, this would further indicate that the school itself is not independently notable. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To note, I neither stated nor implied that the school is small, but merely that it is relatively young--although not nearly the youngest to have an independent article attributed to it. It is actually a medium-sized medical school. Also, I did not imply that the school does not receive national attention, but only that it is not in the form of attention from the national lay press. If you reference the google scholar search I posted above, I believe you'll note a myriad of publications by the school (not the University at large) that were selectively included and published in both national and international journals, a fact which I believe addresses the issues of notability you introduced. • emc7171

It's becoming more clear that you may not be familiar with our inclusion guidelines. Your arguments would better recieved if they cited one of our inclusion guidelines that you believe the school satisfies. I'm starting to think that your connection with the subject of the article may constitute a conflict of interest. That doesn't make you incapable of arguing the school's notability but you're making arguments that don't address the inclusion guidelines I've linked in my previous post.

The search you pointed out has several hits but you haven't pointed out how any specific articles in that search satisfy and specific inclusion guideline. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merely clicking on the news link in the above AfD Find sources heading shows that there is more than enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Mercer University School of Medicine to maintain a stand along article on Mercer University School of Medicine. Clearly meets WP:GNG. As for the argument that the topic does not have enough fame, importance, or popularity notability for a Wikipedia article, that argument doesn't jive with all these reliable sources using their time and resources to write about Mercer University School of Medicine. The article is far from need for a Blow it up and start over solution. While the article could be improved (e.g., info on accreditation problems,[1] etc.) need for improvement isn't a basis for deletion and there's no reason to merge a topic that can stand on its own per WP:GNG. I added ((Main)) to the Mercer University article,[2] which I think takes care of this issue. See Wikipedia:Summary style#Basic technique. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone actual argue that a need for improvement was a reason for deletion? I certainly didn't and don't.

As I pointed out in my nomination, I have looked through those sources and I can't find any national coverage of the school itself. Per WP:ORG, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." If you can find national coverage, I'd certainly be convinced of the school's independent notability. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you again ignoring the google scholar search, which as I stated earlier, links to multiple national academic articles covering Mercer University School of Medicine? emc7171
Please read my last post. I don't know what inclusion guideline the publications would satisfy. Do you? OlYeller21^Talktome 05:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uzma Gamal's arguments, and also per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which notes that separate articles about medical schools are generally kept. Ample coverage exists about this school. Since no real argument is being made for deletion (as opposed to merger), it could be argued that this AfD should be closed on procedural grounds. Having said that, it is fair to note that at the moment, the discussion at Mercer University#School of Medicine is just about as substantive as this separate article; however, it's also apparent that more can be added, as Uzma Gamal notes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The essay you've linked is just that, an essay and not an accepted policy or guideline. Furthermore, when it says "schools", it's specifically referring to elementary and middle schools. Citing someone else's opinion as generally accepted fact is irresponsible. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above, OlYeller21 references WP: ORG. The full quote from the section he referenced, "audience", is as follows: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." As the AJC has been demonstrated to cover MUSM, and is not in the same city, it would be in my estimation considered a "regional" reference. Also, regarding independent verification from outside sources, the WP: ORG designates that any publication can be used as evidence for notability, barring some exceptions. As the many publications on the google scholar search I posted above are both national and international, and don't meet criteria for any of the exceptions, they are thus valid national and international sources, and lend even further evidence that MUSM is indeed independently notable. emc7171

Looking past the needlessly complicated fashion in which you made your argument, they may be national and international but certainly are not independent. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Young or not, schools of medicine at universities are separately notable entities; i think we almost always handle them as such. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the school is an important provider of medical professionals; the state of Georgia provides significant funding, which boosts its importance to the people of that state; the school is a part of the new Mercer University Health Sciences Center with locations throughout Georgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea2006 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 9 May 2012 (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.