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. No arguments for deletion aside from Wikipedian05. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite campus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Just a dictionary definition with no evidence of notability. Prod rejected Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my nomination but with the caveat that the research I've done now, and should have done before, strongly suggests that the title should be Branch Campus - about 20,000 Google books hits on that to just over 3000 for 'satellite', and this "Satellite+campus"&hl=en&ei=9E1MTPncHoeuOOr-iJYD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=30&ved=0CLMBEOgBMB0#v=onepage&q=%22Satellite%20campus%22&f=false,

• I created this article expecting others to fill it in, and am a little surprised it never was. I still think that there should be a history of the satellite campus here, something that discusses the phenomenon and types of satellite campuses. But I've never cared much to write it.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep a good article could easily exist under this name. [1] would be a possible starting point. Hobit (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The topic is worthy of an article, but the current one is so self-evident it's hardly even a dictionary definition. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good solid definition, providing context so that editors who want to expand the article know what the subject is. And as Hobit notes, there's scope for expansion. ISBN 9781607091783 is a whole book on this subject, by its U.S. name of a branch campus. There's a full formal definition, cited in the literature on higher education, of what a branch campus is, formulated by A.G. Konrad in xyr 1982 paper presented at the AACJC conference that year. And even if those weren't enough, this subject is clearly encyclopaedic by dint of already being in another encyclopaedia, in this particular case as the "branch campus" article in the International encyclopedia of higher education, Volume 3 (B-C), ISBN 9780875893235.

    This is a good stub with demonstrable scope for expansion. Please put deletion policy into action properly. Uncle G (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This isn't even a valid stub. It's unreferenced, it's not tagged as a stub and the handful of content words it contains are dwarfed by its own templates. Whilst a stub, or even a useful article, on this topic would have value this just isn't it. In the absence of any expansion in the imminent future (and not just sitting on the shelf for months) we'd be better served by deleting it, leaving it as an obvious REDLINK and re-creating when someone does have opportunity to do it properly. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • it was quicker to type in "((stub))" than to type in "This isn't even a valid stub[...] it's not tagged as a stub". Just an observation --Arkelweis (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to Keep, post recent expansion. That's much more like it. Thanks to those who contributed. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: there was a lot of information removed, i re-inserted it from the history. It's now (again) more than a 1-liner. the 'examples' section needs some tidying. I see a decent stub with improvement potential. Don't forget, when you delete an article, you delete it's history, so check through it for sudden drops in article size (shown in kb in brackets next to the revision date) for any potentiall good stuff in the history --Arkelweis (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has no sources and no sources have been given since the tag was added a long time ago. No doubt that the content is original research.Wikipedian05 (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important topic with plenty of third-party coverage, based on a quick Google search. I started a sourced paragraph about international branch campuses, which is a particularly interesting aspect of this topic. Also, I note that the "Examples" list, which had been deleted earlier but was restored earlier in this AfD, cited references all along in the form of inline ELs. --Orlady (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2010 (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.