Points of interest related to Education on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Points of interest related to Schools on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Assessment

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Education. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Education|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Education. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except ((Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName)) is used for MFD and ((transclude xfd)) for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with ((prodded)) will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education/archive 2

See also:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators for biographies of individual people in the education system
• Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive for articles on individual schools

UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute

UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. References found via GSearch are mostly primary sources from the University itself. Do note that several notable academics and engineers did study here but Notability is not inherited. Alternatively, redirect to University_of_the_Philippines_College_of_Engineering#Academic_departments per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Choice Lab

The Choice Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was nominated for deletion 10 years ago but didn't really address the lack of reliable sources covering this research group (the few that were linked to just mention it in passing). Also not addressed was the fact that the entire article was a copy-and-paste of the official media release, which makes this self-promotion. In 10 years the article has gotten no content edits or inbound links, so it's still that official release word-for-word. The Choice Lab seems to have largely rebranded as something else but I still can't find any real sources actually about it. Details like who founded it and who the members are, what its funding is and who provides that funding, where it's specifically located - the core of an encyclopedia article on this topic would be - it just doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources. Combined with a decade and no real encyclopedia editing occurring on the article makes me think this just isn't an encyclopedia topic. Perhaps it should redirect to Norwegian School of Economics but I didn't want to do that unilaterally. Here2rewrite (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghamitta Balika Vidyalaya

Sanghamitta Balika Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Buddhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do not think that a seperate article is justifiable.

Sustainability at the University of British Columbia

Sustainability at the University of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A child article for the University of British Columbia that does not appear to be notable in its own right. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: PROMO. sourcing is primary, a 404 link (?) and sites that talk about the school in passing. Could perhaps merge a line or two into the University article, but this reads as a PR piece. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:ESSAY. This is not notable as a standalone topic or as a search term for a redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I do not think that a seperate article is justifiable.Fey1995 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sources are primary and I do not see its viability as a stand alone article even if there are secondary sources to support it. Piscili (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E@I

E@I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing found for this educational conference, only things hitting on Euler's complex numbers. Sourcing used appears primary. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, Technology, Internet, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This organization is well known in Esperanto-speaking circles, and I would expect most sources to be in that language. This search found a number of articles in news org sources that discuss the organization: [1] (takes a moment to load the results). I think they're enough to demonstrate notability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAB School of Dentistry

UAB School of Dentistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: N. PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. The sources are lists which can't be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - first a note to the nominator: deletion discussions are about the subject, not the article. It seems to me that the claim sourced to the school of being a pioneer in development of four-handed dentistry is true, that fact would be sourcable to a book on the history of dentistry. WP:BEFORE requires the nominator of an article for deletion to do reasonable research into the subject prior to nomination and specifically mentions that a Google search is not enough. So, did you read any books on the history of dentistry? If reliable independent sources can be found for that bit, my keep would no longer be weak. Second, if it cannot be independently verified after real research, WP:ATD tells us that this title should be a redirect to the university, not a delete. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're free to go look for a book that may or may not exist. The onus is on you to bring sources forward that would improve the article. Nominators need only conduct a WP: BEFORE search, which I already completed. Anything else is a massive waste of time for nominators. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am okay with a redirect as an alternative to deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously, this nominator is trolling at my edits. Sources are weak but can be added eventually. He probably has some connections with other schools lol!

  "this nominator is trolling" is an ad hom. It's not a valid keep rationale. I don't have any conflicts of interest to declare. In fact, it's common for users to nominate several related articles at once. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  then why not nominate other school/colleges pages that has lesser sources, you are only targeting my pages Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not appropriate. You should peobably read the instructions for participation at AfD linked at the top of the page. WP:AGF is a pillar policy and not optional. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAB School of Engineering

UAB School of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: N. PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements -- the sourcing on the article is either primary or database entries. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First, this Keep vote is from the article's creator. Second, the only secondary source that I see that could establish notability is the Jones article. Unfortunately, it appears to be a rephrasing of a UAB announcement, which is a primary source. It also isn't clear to me whether Jones is reliable in the first place. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  why are you always doubting my sources, it is already on clear that my sources are reliable. Are you trying to delete all my pages? It seems you're targeting my pages. This page is already a criteria for nobility. No need to delete. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I want to make it clear that whether a source is secondary and whether it can be used to establish notability are two different questions. WP: GNG describes several criteria for whether a source can be used to establish notability. You are right that there are secondary sources in the article. However, those sources can't be used to establish notability. The Shipley article isn't about the school -- it is about an invention by people who happen to be affiliated with UAB Engineering. Since the coverage isn't direct, it can't establish notability. The issue with the Jones article remains unaddressed. The remainder are lists or directories that cannot be used to establish notability.

  I'm not targeting "your pages" (whatever that means, considering that no user really "owns" any page outside of their userspace). In any case, AfD is not the appropriate venue to address such a claim. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll add more secondary sources until you gave up! The article is about the school that created the invention. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is about the school that created the invention.

  The article is titled "UAB engineering students create walker to aid Children’s of Alabama patients". It's about an invention -- it's not about the school. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to the University's main article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:Redirects are cheap and WP:ATD. The article about the walker is from an unreliable website that relies on user contributions. The story about the new building is WP:ROUTINE and does not speak to notability at all. Further, I agree with the nominator that it appears to be written off a press release, making it also not independent. A good general rule of thumb is law schools and medical schools usually qualify for an independent article; the other subschools that make up a university don't, barring some serious coverage of some of their research in books, magazines or journals. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HeartMath Institute

HeartMath Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Content previously deleted for lack of notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartmath Institute, recreated under a trivially different capitalization. This is a fringe institute, for which the refbomb of references are either passing mentions, not independent, or not reliable sources. This should at best be redirected to Lew Childre, as the original Heartmath Institute has been. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gargleafg, Jytdog, Bon courage, 79616gr, and TTTommy111: Pinging participants in the previous discussion, although most are not long absent (and one has changed username). BD2412 T 17:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 10:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - On its face, the organization seems notable. However, a closer look at the references seem like it is simply promoting itself. For instance, this article in Wired has a disclaimer that the writer received one of the devices and is not a doctor (curious why a non-medical professional would do a story on it). Then there is this in the Business Insider but looks like all the information was supplied by the org ("According to Doc Childre, founder of the Institute of HeartMath") so not independent. They simply do not pass the test of WP:SIRS. If anything, a redirect to Lew Childre as an WP:ATD would suffice. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The purpose of the Business Insider quote you mention to is distinguish between what the institute claims their device can do and the author's own review. This is exactly what an independent source should do. That being said, I think there's better sources than the Business Insider article anyway. ChaseK (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fringe but notable. For WP:RS about their non-science claims there's 1 from WP:INDYUK, 2 3 from Wired, and 4 from Engadget which are all rated reliable in WP:PS. With respect to "coherence" there's a literature review 5, and for their fringe theories as per WP:PARITY there's also 6 by James Coyne and 7 by Steven Novella. There's plenty of reliable information here you just have to use the sources judiciously. Since Lew Childre's notability mostly derives from the institute, if anything I'd add a redirect the other way; there's far more coverage of the institute than him. ChaseK (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive my skepticism, but you are the article creator, and of your total of somewhat less than 350 edits to Wikipedia, more than 2/3 have been with respect to this sole topic. I would infer from those numbers that you might have a disproportionate sense of its notability. BD2412 T 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems to be an attack on me rather than a reply to the substance of my comment. The purpose of deletion discussions is to determine whether the subject meets the notability criterion, not whether editors have a "disproportionate sense" of notability. Nor do I think it's appropriate for an administrator to disparage the contribution counts of a (newish) user. ChaseK (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be clear, I find the citations to be insufficient for an entity that, even as a non-profit, must still meet WP:NCORP, which is a fairly high standard given the number of companies that would like to see their products featured in Wikipedia. It is fairly well-established that having a notable product does not automatically make the manufacturer notable, and a product review that mentions the manufacturer is still a passing mention for that manufacturer. BD2412 T
        • To quote WP:PRODUCT: "In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article." In this case the org has broader notability than its products, and so the org article should be preferred over product articles. ChaseK (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear what you are saying but if notability of this company is based on skepticism, the references must still meet WP:ORGCRIT. These do not. It looks like the company did some well-planned press which gained a little traction about a decade ago and then a few who guest posted on some sites to counter it. if the company was worthy of notice, we would have plenty of in-depth coverage showing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No the skeptical sources 5-7 don't establish notability, they only contextualize the other coverage. Sources 1-4 were meant to establish notability. For example: 1: Jerome Burne is health journalist independent of the subject, The Independant is generally considered reliable, and the article has substantial coverage. Seems fine for use in non-WP:MEDRS statements. ChaseK (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, this is promotional and unencyclopedic. I won't revert since this is going through discussion, but if the page is kept it would need to go through a discussion per WP:ONUS. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm fine if you remove it - I added it mostly because I thought it was interesting that much of their fringe research is being funded by the U.S. government. To be honest I find WP:VNOT to be very vague so I'm not sure how it applies here. ChaseK (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. We also have to focus on WP:NPOV. If adding it because you find it "interesting that much of their fringe search is being funded by the U.S. government," that is clearly trying to lead readers to a conclusion which we don't do on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: I would also point out, relevant to the discussion, that there are government contractors that receive billions or tens of billions of dollars per year. A company receiving $4 million over a twenty year period is of no moment. BD2412 T 00:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, given the paucity of the sources; thank you CNMall41. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The institute has been covered far more extensively than Childre, so shouldn't the redirect go that way? Or delete both articles? ChaseK (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect as per above. WP:NCORP fail. Not every pseudoscience org can have a Wikipedia page. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Slight POV slant, would need significant rewriting to be in line with MOS, but this is largely irrelevant due to the questionability of the references and previous AfD verdict.Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 13:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've added this to the Paranormal-related deletion discussion list. 5Q5|^✉ 10:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete per WP:ATTACK. This page exists primarily to disparage its subject. JSFarman (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angrezi Mein Kehte Hain

Angrezi Mein Kehte Hain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to BIG_Synergy#Fiction_shows. RangersRus (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to BIG_Synergy#Fiction_shows yes. Note: again, inviting all future noms of programs with coverage for verification but uncertain notability to redirect them boldly without nominating for deletion. It's easily undone and, in that case, if issues are still apparent, Afd remains an option. It will save time to many of us. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, As nominator, I support the redirect as listed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to BIG_Synergy#Fiction_shows.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collat School of Business

Collat School of Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: N. The only sources on the articles are either primary, databases, or closely match the wording of a primary source. PROD was removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not opposed to sourcing improvements that would establish notability. This AfD merely describes the state of the article when it was dePRODed. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to the University. Barring unique circumstances, the general consensus has always been that law schools and medical schools get articles and other sub-schools get a redirect or nothing at all. See SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is nothing here and nothing rising to the level of GNG that I could find to indicate this school is an exception to the general consensus. If this article was about a business rather than a business school, it would be an A7 CSD. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to the main UABpage. Sources used are primarily primary, and in digging, I was unable to pull any that meet WP: N. Obviously, just because I wasn't able to find those those kinds of sources isn't definitive, however, I understand the preferred treatment, if warranted, is to build out a supporting UAB academics page. The Academics section of the main UAB page would be the where the editor would want to start placing this information MertenMerten (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I already added secondary sources.

  Those sources are databases or closely match the wording of a primary source, none of which can be used to establish notability.

  Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.

  This is not a valid reason for why an article should be kept under WP: N.

  It has met WP: N criteria.

  You are free to baselessly claim, as the article's creator, that article meets notability guidelines. In its current state, it does not. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These are not baseless claims you haven't checked the secondary sources I added!.

  Shortcut

  WP:SIGCOV

  "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

  The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

  Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

  "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to annoy and delete a school/colleges page, you better check UCLA's collleges and school, most of there references are directly linked to the institution, not a single secondary sources but you wanted to delete this page with sufficient secondary sources I added, and yet you are ignoring it. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your time is better served finding better sources instead of calling a volunteer annoying, branding them as ignorant, or demanding they read a page which has nothing to do with the AfD. This AfD is about sourcing, so of the sources currently in the article diff:

  The Belanger article is WP: ROUTINE coverage of the renaming of the school.

  The Watson article isn't reliable. Who is this guy, and how do we know he didn't make up everything in the article?

  The Lewis article was written by a high schooler and doesn't provide much information beyond that UAB's business program was ranked by the USNWR. I'd argue that this coverage is routine, and even if it isn't, there isn't much to make an article with.

  There's two sources that are databases and can't be used to establish notability.

Anyway, nothing in this AfD stops anyone from putting information about the business school on the main UAB page, so I'm kind of surprised that there's such an aggressive push to keep the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's why it's called a secondary source because it only addresses the topic not the main topic and my sources are reliable and somehow you degraded a high school writer and still a reliable source. Your intentions are not really into the topic, you are trying to degrade my sources when in fact it is a criteria for nobility. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you still had doubts, I'll add as many secondary sources everyday until you get out of here. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and btw those are published articles that you are trying to belittle, and it means it has met the criteria for notability even if the writer is a high school, a farmer, or a homeless man. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nominator, I'm okay with a redirect to the main University of Alabama at Birmingham article as an AtD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need for redirect, I already added secondary sources. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westview Secondary School

Westview Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominated for deletion as this article entirely lacks WP:Sources and doesn't meet WP:Notability neither WP:GNG

I wondered why it is retained on Wikipedia from 2006 till this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• fixed malformed Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 03:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've not given a valid reason for deletion. Deletion is based on the subject of the article, not the condition of the article. See WP:BEFORE. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It fails Wikipedia:Verifiability wɔːr (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability and no sources since 2006 — Iadmc♫^talk  00:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree the article in its current state lacks sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. I added a couple sources to the article, and also posted multiple potential sources from ProQuest at Talk:Westview Secondary School. Based on these sources, this subject meets WP:GNG, per criteria at WP:NSCHOOL. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Only one of the sources might add notability to the school: "Nash Taylor placed second in a global competition". Just because a school exists and is mentioned in multiple sources doing normal things for a school, this doesn't establish notability. — Iadmc♫^talk  08:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you misunderstand WP's concept of notability. See WP:N, which says Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. Notability rests on significant coverage in reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Of the cited sources, only one does this (ApplyBoard) and I'm not convinced of its independence. I need to join ProQuest to verify the sources on the talk page so bear with me on that — Iadmc♫^talk  11:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not able to join ProQuest as a non-academic as I'm not at a university etc :( — Iadmc♫^talk  11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah. Another user pointed me to The Wikipedia Library. Bingo I'm in. I'll check out the subject soon — Iadmc♫^talk  11:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is about all I can find [2] that's not related to regular school items (a concert, a student getting an award/scholarship)... I don't think we have enough for notability here. A school from the 1970s likely won't have notability as an historic building either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement

Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Merge to New Democracy (Greece). On its own it fails WP:NORG, as the student wing of New Democracy it adds value to that article. Disputed draftification 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Greece. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author note:

I will try to find some time to expand the article over the following days. For the time being, I would just like to mention that there has been a seperate article about it in the Greek wikipedia for years: https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A0%CF%81%CF%89%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1_-_%CE%9D%CE%AD%CE%B1_%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A6%CE%BF%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%9A%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7 .

As a new wikipedia member, I am not very familiar with criteria and processes. However, since there is a seperate page for it in the Greek wikipedia (it has not been merged with the New Democracy party greek page), I think that there should also be a seperate equivalent page in the English wikipedia. In my opinion, expanding the article is the way to go, not merging it.

(So I would vote for KEEP, while expanding it at the same time.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ArchidamusIII I would have moved it to Draft, but see WP:DRAFTIFY which says I cannot. I do not feel that drafification is appropriate, or would have suggested it. The Greek language Wikipedia has different standards. The English language version has the most stringent. Existence of an article in one is no guarantee that is suitable for the other or another, not is any precedent set between language versions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks for the information!

I just added 15 cases-events that attracted media attention (in table form). By media I mean media that are reputable in Greece. In all honesty, I think that Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement should definitely meet the notability criteria. A quick google search with δαπ νδφκ as keywords (its Greek abbreviation) yields numerous results.

I will try to expand the article more over the following days. There is a lot of material available, so it is hard for me to cover everything. My original goal was to establish a short article and then let others slowly add details.

ArchidamusIII (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - per nominator.

TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - national student wing of one of main parties in Greece, had major role in national student body elections (which is a very important event in Greek politics). Whilst the article might need some editing, its not a candidate for Draftify. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Student Movements of Greece

Independent Student Movements of Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have notability and original research concerns with this article.

I am unable to identify where the collective subject of the page is discussed sufficiently to meet the GNG. This part makes up the introduction of the page. In this section, the article cites to a primary research paper and a master's thesis and then a bunch of primary sources of student organization websites or interviews with organization members about upcoming elections.

Then the article moves to a list of student organizations by section. I doubt this would pass as a WP:NLIST. It variously fails to cite specific things about each student organization from primary sources. It cites at one point the view count from a YouTube video.

The final section is a timeline specific to the "Youth Communist Liberation" organization, not the subject of the page itself.

I want to be clear here, I'm not making an WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP argument here. I'm saying that the contents of this page don't meet the threshold of encyclopedic, it's just WP:SYNTH style OR and that the purported subject of the page, i.e. the topic of Independent Student Movements of Greece, presently fails collective notability and is dressed up by the OR and does not presently meet WP:N

I was in the process of maintenance tagging the article, but combined with the NPOV concerns and the above, I don't presently believe this article is siutable for mainspace. This page has a history of being draftified. I'm not opposed to a draftify ATD. But an approved article should ensure that the contents of the article represent the subject of the article, and that it meets our WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR policies. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s explanations:

Addressing misunderstandings regarding sources:

-Sources 1-2 are indeed research.

- Source 3 is the only available database (at least as far as I am aware of) that covers all years starting from 2004.

- Sources 4-6 are not student websites, these are legitimate (and reasonably popular) Greek news sites! (See “notability part” for more details).

- Sources 8-9 shows that two very popular outlets (See “notability part”) were discussing about the video that the movement posted. Source 7 is the video itself, so that the reader can access it.

- Source 10 proves that the YouTube account that is mentioned in source 11 is indeed the official account of the New Democracy student wing, and source 11 proves that its most popular video has 52,000 views at the moment. (One has to click on “popular” to see it.)

- Source 12 shows the election results for that specific department, and it is visible that the movement was labelled as “other right wing”.

- Source 13 shows that the other independent party got media attention for getting the 1^st place in their department elections. It is a valid news website, not a student website.

- Sources 14 and 15 prove that no elections took place in 2020 and 2021.

I see a “failed verification” near source 6. That should not be the case; if someone clicks on the screenshots of that website, he/she should be able to see their agenda. It says “10+1 ΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΜΑΣ”;  there are a couple of screenshots there that mention everything I have included.

The timeline is not about the Youth Communist Liberation! It only uses their election database because it is the only available source! The timeline is about the independent movements, like the rest of the article.

Beginner question: Could/Should I add Facebook photos as primary sources about the movements? That should clear any doubts.

Regarding notability:

- There is 1 article from Luben.tv (~1,500,000 monthly users) and 1 article from Neopolis.gr (~760,000 monthly users) about the first movement. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luben.tv and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopolis.gr for membership evidence.]

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr and 1 from e-reportaz.gr about the second movement. These are legitimate news sites in Greece. I do not know the exact number of views they have, but other Greek Wikipedia members can confirm that these sites are legitimate.

- There was 1 article from alfavita.gr regarding the third movement. According to this source, alfavita.gr is one of the most popular news sites in Greece (https://www.e-tetradio.gr/Article/22316/ta-20-koryfaia-enhmerwtika-site-toy-ellhnikoy-internet ) But in any case, it is definitely a legitimate news site.

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr about the fourth movement.

All of these articles were written in different years.

Apart from this, pages about other university parties already exist in Wikipedia. Like this one, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLOCO

With the same line of argumentation, shouldn’t the Independent Movements have a page as well? After all, their performance in the elections is consistently better than that of Bloco, their real impact is higher.

I am not claiming that this article is a super important piece of information, but still, it fills in a gap. It adds to the knowledge base. It could be useful for those who are interested in Greek university elections.

Regarding neutrality:

- I only listed these 4 specific parties because these are the only ones that have received media attention so far. (Or at least I am not aware of any others that have received media attention. Feel free to add more to the list.) I am by no means trying to promote these 4 movements in particular.

- Regarding the potentially most viewed video, I am just stating facts. The official YouTube account of the New Democracy student wing has no video with more than 52,000 views, while one of the independent parties has a video with 63,000 views. This is an objective statement, I think.

-Regarding the best result up to date (29.9%), I checked the entire database, and I was not able to find any better result. If anyone else is aware of a better result, I will be happy to be corrected.

- The database I am using is the one of the communist student wing. The only reason I am doing it is because there is no other database available though! As far as I am aware of, this is the only database with detailed results since 2004.

Regarding original research:

- The introduction relies on published research.

- The information about each one of the 4 movements comes from reliable media.

- The only “original research” I did was summing “other left”, “other right” and “other” to calculate the total percentage in the Timeline section. Everything else is documented.

These are my 2 drachmas! ( I mean… cents!) I am happy to be corrected, and I am also more than happy to hear suggestions for improvement. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read the article!

(PS: As the author, my opinion is to KEEP the article.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered some data about the media I mentioned:

According to this source https://www.moneyreview.gr/society/13952/kathimerines-ekdoseis-kai-neolaia-gr-mazi/, neolaia.gr had 1,000,000 monthly visitors and had published more than 110,000 articles in 2021.

According to this source, neolaia.gr has 900,000 monthly visitors and 4,500,000 page views in May 2014. https://www.advertising.gr/advertising-2/paramedia/rekor-episkepseon-gia-to-neolaia-gr-55244/

Regarding alfavita.gr, this source ranked it 5th in 2020: https://edessaikoskosmos.gr/eidisis/poia-einai-ta-megalytera-eidiseografika-site-se-episkepsimotita-stin-ellada/

I am not claiming that these sources are 100% reliable and that the numbers are 100% accurate, but we are definitely talking about serious media that have an impact in Greece. There are not student websites, these are serious nationwide media. (The same applies to Luben.tv and Neopolis.gr as explained earlier.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: "While relatively rare" and the fact that they gather less than 10% of the vote isn't notable here. Could put a brief mention in an article about the political process of Greece, but most of these Movements seem to come and go fairly regularly. The sourcing is simply confirming their existence at a point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K35DG-D

K35DG-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; merge with University of California, San Diego#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not Merge it with a merge tag instead of an AFD tag then? Still think it should be merged, it’s just a weird choice not to use the tag. Danubeball (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No support for delete, just a vague comment on merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Television stations meet GNG based on their publicly available license application alone. There's an SNG that explains this but its name eludes me. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's School B zone unit

St. Michael's School B zone unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely unsourced since its creation in 2013. No reliable sources found online, does not meet WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this the same as St. Michael's School, Durgapur? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva in the emblems of educational establishments

Minerva in the emblems of educational establishments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Largely unsourced, no evidence of notability per WP:LISTN. PROD contested with I think the article text does a decent job of making an argument that as the goddess of wisdom Minerva would be relevant to symbolism of higher education, which is not how list notability works at all - the article itself requires sources to prove the list's merit, not people's analysis of unsourced text, and I'm not even sure what they're referring to * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Education, and Schools. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find several articles by individual institutions explaining the significance of Minerva in their logos/seals, but I can't find anything discussing the topic in the aggregate. As nom said, this is a failure of WP:NLIST. It's also mostly unsourced and the few sources are mostly about individual entries in the list. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively and redirect to Minerva#Universities and educational establishments as WP:Alternative to deletion. As WeirdNAnnoyed stated, sources for examples can be found, a very few are in the article now, and there is some brief commentary here and there, like here. Like that, the list is preserved in the history in case anyone would like to use that to start a search for sources or the like, and the mentioned paragraph at Minerva is not quite left hanging. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously considered for deletion in 2010. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kvno1jrc jalandhar cantt. Since then notability of schools is much stricter. This one is unreferenced for 14 years and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Punjab. LibStar (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sweetser

Arthur Sweetser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've been able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [3][4][5] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ([6][7]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This as well, gives a few paragraphs to his career to that point [8] and a book review here [9] Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Language School, Dubai

English Language School, Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a school in Dubai, and cannot find references to add. The only existing reference in the article is to the school's website. The school's names make it difficult to search for, but if there is WP:SIGCOV it ought to be findable. I don't think it meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. Tacyarg (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I added some references that appeared in two English-language newspapers published in Dubai. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sourcing seems improved. Searching for its former names I see some further potential sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get another opinion about sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UWSP Albertson Center for Learning Resources

UWSP Albertson Center for Learning Resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not written in an encyclopedic format and fails WP:GNG - all of the sources are primary. If kept, needs significant cleanup. Some of this information may be able to be merged elsewhere, but I'm not sure where. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Wisconsin. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a former library on a university campus. Absolutely nothing here is cited to independent sources. Most of the sources provided are from this library's website itself; the rest are from the websites of the university it served. A redirect to the university campus is probably warranted; unfortunately, that article is a mess, too. There's probably citable material for the decision to demolish the structure and the plans to replace it, but I hesitate to suggest "merge" per se when the level of detail here is so excessive. Lubal (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 15:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics education in New York

Mathematics education in New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Almost entirely unsourced and out-of-date. Insufficiently distinct from Mathematics education in the United States. Possibly could be redirected to New York Regents Examinations. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is true that the present article is very poorly sourced (I am not sure about the datedness but willing to take the nominator's word for it). However, the content looks to me like it's all true and sourceable in principle. Indeed, it's clear that this is a notable topic: there were major changes to the structure of New York State's mathematics courses and exams in the last 25 years, and they received widespread coverage at the time. For example, here's one article about the 2007 change to Algebra-Geometry-Algebra 2 [15], here's an article about aligning math requirements to Common Core, and here's an article about one particular administration of an exam that spends several paragraphs discussing various changes to state policies over time, as in the article we're discussing. These various changes described in our article were mostly specific to New York State, making Mathematics education in the United States an unacceptable merge/redirect target, and I see no advantage to merging them into an article about Regents exams in general (better would be links out from that article to separate articles on the various subject areas it covers, when there is sufficient sourcing to permit that). --JBL (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps merging this with some material from New York Regents Examinations and renaming would be an improvement? Walsh90210 (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand this proposal/question; what content do you want to merge where, and rename what to what? --JBL (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The text needs citation and probably cleaning, but it's not beyond repair, and the topic is an encyclopedic one. Redirecting to the Regent Examinations would be a bad move, because math education is more general than just the Regent Exams in algebra and geometry (for example), and likewise, they have Regent Exams on topics other than mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture

Microlecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. The article is written pretty badly but the large number of sources are in fact good. There are a whole lot of studies but it seems like there would almost definitely be at least 3 in there specifically mentioning microlectures which are also reliable and secondary.

  e.g.

  1. https://statenews.com/article/2009/03/microlectures_turn_lessons_into_interactive_snippets

  2. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/11/10/teaching-in-one-minute-snippets.aspx

  3. (off google not the thing, accepts submissions from non-journalists) https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-delivery-and-instruction/microlectures-101-what-why-how/

  4. (from the thing) short mention in fox news

  So the article has a clear topic, at least 2 reliable secondary sources, and a number of journal articles (plus many, many unreliable blogs). I think there's not really a good case to delete here, the article is just bad and basically needs to be started from scratch without all the blogs. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That said it might be a fad and not be the sustained coverage policy, but I'd say keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a different word for "lectures on TikTok"? I would not be too surprised if there is more coverage of the general concept under a different name.
  I'm not entirely convinced yet, but the links at [16] (which links to your link 3) suggest this might be "keep but re-write". Walsh90210 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bago University Students' Union

Bago University Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have performed WP:BEFORE and searched for in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. However, I found only these:

• https://www.rfa.org/burmese/news/admin-pressure-students-01212014214421.html
• https://www.rfa.org/burmese/news/white-armband-movement-03262015105432.html
• https://www.myanmarwitness.org/reports/violence-against-protestors-in-bago
• https://ca.style.yahoo.com/news/myanmars-military-charging-families-85-131919731.html
• https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/11/asia/myanmar-families-bago-bodies-intl-hnk/index.html

These sources are just passing mentions. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The majority of sources that are cited are about the protest and arrest, where other people and this union's members were arrested. Does this establish notability? Please ping me if you find any in-depth coverage of the subject. GrabUp - Talk 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The student union has played in Burmese politics. Here is some coverage in Burmese that I found:[17], [18], [19]. 1.47.153.186 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist. Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of children's books featuring characters with limb differences (via WP:PROD on 28 August 2023)

Check WP:PRODSUM for articles proposed for deletion.

• Category:Japanese high school television series at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 18#Category:Japanese high school television series (18 August 2017)

Pandolfini Italian Culinary Academy

Pandolfini Italian Culinary Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Schools, and Italy. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial College School

Equatorial College School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to consider against the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uganda. JMWt (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghamitta Balika Vidyalaya

Sanghamitta Balika Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Buddhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Basil High School for Superiors

Al Basil High School for Superiors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails notability. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Bassel High School for Outstanding Students Quick-ease2020 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Syria. Owen× ☎ 00:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do not think that a seperate article is justifiable.

Sustainability at the University of British Columbia

Sustainability at the University of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A child article for the University of British Columbia that does not appear to be notable in its own right. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: PROMO. sourcing is primary, a 404 link (?) and sites that talk about the school in passing. Could perhaps merge a line or two into the University article, but this reads as a PR piece. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:ESSAY. This is not notable as a standalone topic or as a search term for a redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I do not think that a seperate article is justifiable.Fey1995 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sources are primary and I do not see its viability as a stand alone article even if there are secondary sources to support it. Piscili (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's School B zone unit

St. Michael's School B zone unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely unsourced since its creation in 2013. No reliable sources found online, does not meet WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this the same as St. Michael's School, Durgapur? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously considered for deletion in 2010. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kvno1jrc jalandhar cantt. Since then notability of schools is much stricter. This one is unreferenced for 14 years and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Punjab. LibStar (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westview Secondary School

Westview Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominated for deletion as this article entirely lacks WP:Sources and doesn't meet WP:Notability neither WP:GNG

I wondered why it is retained on Wikipedia from 2006 till this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• fixed malformed Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 03:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've not given a valid reason for deletion. Deletion is based on the subject of the article, not the condition of the article. See WP:BEFORE. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It fails Wikipedia:Verifiability wɔːr (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability and no sources since 2006 — Iadmc♫^talk  00:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree the article in its current state lacks sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. I added a couple sources to the article, and also posted multiple potential sources from ProQuest at Talk:Westview Secondary School. Based on these sources, this subject meets WP:GNG, per criteria at WP:NSCHOOL. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Only one of the sources might add notability to the school: "Nash Taylor placed second in a global competition". Just because a school exists and is mentioned in multiple sources doing normal things for a school, this doesn't establish notability. — Iadmc♫^talk  08:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you misunderstand WP's concept of notability. See WP:N, which says Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. Notability rests on significant coverage in reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Of the cited sources, only one does this (ApplyBoard) and I'm not convinced of its independence. I need to join ProQuest to verify the sources on the talk page so bear with me on that — Iadmc♫^talk  11:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not able to join ProQuest as a non-academic as I'm not at a university etc :( — Iadmc♫^talk  11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah. Another user pointed me to The Wikipedia Library. Bingo I'm in. I'll check out the subject soon — Iadmc♫^talk  11:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is about all I can find [20] that's not related to regular school items (a concert, a student getting an award/scholarship)... I don't think we have enough for notability here. A school from the 1970s likely won't have notability as an historic building either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Language School, Dubai

English Language School, Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a school in Dubai, and cannot find references to add. The only existing reference in the article is to the school's website. The school's names make it difficult to search for, but if there is WP:SIGCOV it ought to be findable. I don't think it meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. Tacyarg (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I added some references that appeared in two English-language newspapers published in Dubai. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sourcing seems improved. Searching for its former names I see some further potential sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get another opinion about sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAB School of Dentistry

UAB School of Dentistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: N. PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. The sources are lists which can't be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - first a note to the nominator: deletion discussions are about the subject, not the article. It seems to me that the claim sourced to the school of being a pioneer in development of four-handed dentistry is true, that fact would be sourcable to a book on the history of dentistry. WP:BEFORE requires the nominator of an article for deletion to do reasonable research into the subject prior to nomination and specifically mentions that a Google search is not enough. So, did you read any books on the history of dentistry? If reliable independent sources can be found for that bit, my keep would no longer be weak. Second, if it cannot be independently verified after real research, WP:ATD tells us that this title should be a redirect to the university, not a delete. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're free to go look for a book that may or may not exist. The onus is on you to bring sources forward that would improve the article. Nominators need only conduct a WP: BEFORE search, which I already completed. Anything else is a massive waste of time for nominators. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am okay with a redirect as an alternative to deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously, this nominator is trolling at my edits. Sources are weak but can be added eventually. He probably has some connections with other schools lol!

  "this nominator is trolling" is an ad hom. It's not a valid keep rationale. I don't have any conflicts of interest to declare. In fact, it's common for users to nominate several related articles at once. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  then why not nominate other school/colleges pages that has lesser sources, you are only targeting my pages Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not appropriate. You should peobably read the instructions for participation at AfD linked at the top of the page. WP:AGF is a pillar policy and not optional. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAB School of Engineering

UAB School of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: N. PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements -- the sourcing on the article is either primary or database entries. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First, this Keep vote is from the article's creator. Second, the only secondary source that I see that could establish notability is the Jones article. Unfortunately, it appears to be a rephrasing of a UAB announcement, which is a primary source. It also isn't clear to me whether Jones is reliable in the first place. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  why are you always doubting my sources, it is already on clear that my sources are reliable. Are you trying to delete all my pages? It seems you're targeting my pages. This page is already a criteria for nobility. No need to delete. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I want to make it clear that whether a source is secondary and whether it can be used to establish notability are two different questions. WP: GNG describes several criteria for whether a source can be used to establish notability. You are right that there are secondary sources in the article. However, those sources can't be used to establish notability. The Shipley article isn't about the school -- it is about an invention by people who happen to be affiliated with UAB Engineering. Since the coverage isn't direct, it can't establish notability. The issue with the Jones article remains unaddressed. The remainder are lists or directories that cannot be used to establish notability.

  I'm not targeting "your pages" (whatever that means, considering that no user really "owns" any page outside of their userspace). In any case, AfD is not the appropriate venue to address such a claim. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll add more secondary sources until you gave up! The article is about the school that created the invention. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is about the school that created the invention.

  The article is titled "UAB engineering students create walker to aid Children’s of Alabama patients". It's about an invention -- it's not about the school. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to the University's main article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:Redirects are cheap and WP:ATD. The article about the walker is from an unreliable website that relies on user contributions. The story about the new building is WP:ROUTINE and does not speak to notability at all. Further, I agree with the nominator that it appears to be written off a press release, making it also not independent. A good general rule of thumb is law schools and medical schools usually qualify for an independent article; the other subschools that make up a university don't, barring some serious coverage of some of their research in books, magazines or journals. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collat School of Business

Collat School of Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: N. The only sources on the articles are either primary, databases, or closely match the wording of a primary source. PROD was removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not opposed to sourcing improvements that would establish notability. This AfD merely describes the state of the article when it was dePRODed. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to the University. Barring unique circumstances, the general consensus has always been that law schools and medical schools get articles and other sub-schools get a redirect or nothing at all. See SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is nothing here and nothing rising to the level of GNG that I could find to indicate this school is an exception to the general consensus. If this article was about a business rather than a business school, it would be an A7 CSD. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to the main UABpage. Sources used are primarily primary, and in digging, I was unable to pull any that meet WP: N. Obviously, just because I wasn't able to find those those kinds of sources isn't definitive, however, I understand the preferred treatment, if warranted, is to build out a supporting UAB academics page. The Academics section of the main UAB page would be the where the editor would want to start placing this information MertenMerten (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I already added secondary sources.

  Those sources are databases or closely match the wording of a primary source, none of which can be used to establish notability.

  Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.

  This is not a valid reason for why an article should be kept under WP: N.

  It has met WP: N criteria.

  You are free to baselessly claim, as the article's creator, that article meets notability guidelines. In its current state, it does not. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These are not baseless claims you haven't checked the secondary sources I added!.

  Shortcut

  WP:SIGCOV

  "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

  The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

  Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

  "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to annoy and delete a school/colleges page, you better check UCLA's collleges and school, most of there references are directly linked to the institution, not a single secondary sources but you wanted to delete this page with sufficient secondary sources I added, and yet you are ignoring it. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your time is better served finding better sources instead of calling a volunteer annoying, branding them as ignorant, or demanding they read a page which has nothing to do with the AfD. This AfD is about sourcing, so of the sources currently in the article diff:

  The Belanger article is WP: ROUTINE coverage of the renaming of the school.

  The Watson article isn't reliable. Who is this guy, and how do we know he didn't make up everything in the article?

  The Lewis article was written by a high schooler and doesn't provide much information beyond that UAB's business program was ranked by the USNWR. I'd argue that this coverage is routine, and even if it isn't, there isn't much to make an article with.

  There's two sources that are databases and can't be used to establish notability.

Anyway, nothing in this AfD stops anyone from putting information about the business school on the main UAB page, so I'm kind of surprised that there's such an aggressive push to keep the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's why it's called a secondary source because it only addresses the topic not the main topic and my sources are reliable and somehow you degraded a high school writer and still a reliable source. Your intentions are not really into the topic, you are trying to degrade my sources when in fact it is a criteria for nobility. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you still had doubts, I'll add as many secondary sources everyday until you get out of here. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and btw those are published articles that you are trying to belittle, and it means it has met the criteria for notability even if the writer is a high school, a farmer, or a homeless man. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nominator, I'm okay with a redirect to the main University of Alabama at Birmingham article as an AtD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need for redirect, I already added secondary sources. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Student Movements of Greece

Independent Student Movements of Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have notability and original research concerns with this article.

I am unable to identify where the collective subject of the page is discussed sufficiently to meet the GNG. This part makes up the introduction of the page. In this section, the article cites to a primary research paper and a master's thesis and then a bunch of primary sources of student organization websites or interviews with organization members about upcoming elections.

Then the article moves to a list of student organizations by section. I doubt this would pass as a WP:NLIST. It variously fails to cite specific things about each student organization from primary sources. It cites at one point the view count from a YouTube video.

The final section is a timeline specific to the "Youth Communist Liberation" organization, not the subject of the page itself.

I want to be clear here, I'm not making an WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP argument here. I'm saying that the contents of this page don't meet the threshold of encyclopedic, it's just WP:SYNTH style OR and that the purported subject of the page, i.e. the topic of Independent Student Movements of Greece, presently fails collective notability and is dressed up by the OR and does not presently meet WP:N

I was in the process of maintenance tagging the article, but combined with the NPOV concerns and the above, I don't presently believe this article is siutable for mainspace. This page has a history of being draftified. I'm not opposed to a draftify ATD. But an approved article should ensure that the contents of the article represent the subject of the article, and that it meets our WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR policies. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s explanations:

Addressing misunderstandings regarding sources:

-Sources 1-2 are indeed research.

- Source 3 is the only available database (at least as far as I am aware of) that covers all years starting from 2004.

- Sources 4-6 are not student websites, these are legitimate (and reasonably popular) Greek news sites! (See “notability part” for more details).

- Sources 8-9 shows that two very popular outlets (See “notability part”) were discussing about the video that the movement posted. Source 7 is the video itself, so that the reader can access it.

- Source 10 proves that the YouTube account that is mentioned in source 11 is indeed the official account of the New Democracy student wing, and source 11 proves that its most popular video has 52,000 views at the moment. (One has to click on “popular” to see it.)

- Source 12 shows the election results for that specific department, and it is visible that the movement was labelled as “other right wing”.

- Source 13 shows that the other independent party got media attention for getting the 1^st place in their department elections. It is a valid news website, not a student website.

- Sources 14 and 15 prove that no elections took place in 2020 and 2021.

I see a “failed verification” near source 6. That should not be the case; if someone clicks on the screenshots of that website, he/she should be able to see their agenda. It says “10+1 ΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΜΑΣ”;  there are a couple of screenshots there that mention everything I have included.

The timeline is not about the Youth Communist Liberation! It only uses their election database because it is the only available source! The timeline is about the independent movements, like the rest of the article.

Beginner question: Could/Should I add Facebook photos as primary sources about the movements? That should clear any doubts.

Regarding notability:

- There is 1 article from Luben.tv (~1,500,000 monthly users) and 1 article from Neopolis.gr (~760,000 monthly users) about the first movement. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luben.tv and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopolis.gr for membership evidence.]

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr and 1 from e-reportaz.gr about the second movement. These are legitimate news sites in Greece. I do not know the exact number of views they have, but other Greek Wikipedia members can confirm that these sites are legitimate.

- There was 1 article from alfavita.gr regarding the third movement. According to this source, alfavita.gr is one of the most popular news sites in Greece (https://www.e-tetradio.gr/Article/22316/ta-20-koryfaia-enhmerwtika-site-toy-ellhnikoy-internet ) But in any case, it is definitely a legitimate news site.

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr about the fourth movement.

All of these articles were written in different years.

Apart from this, pages about other university parties already exist in Wikipedia. Like this one, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLOCO

With the same line of argumentation, shouldn’t the Independent Movements have a page as well? After all, their performance in the elections is consistently better than that of Bloco, their real impact is higher.

I am not claiming that this article is a super important piece of information, but still, it fills in a gap. It adds to the knowledge base. It could be useful for those who are interested in Greek university elections.

Regarding neutrality:

- I only listed these 4 specific parties because these are the only ones that have received media attention so far. (Or at least I am not aware of any others that have received media attention. Feel free to add more to the list.) I am by no means trying to promote these 4 movements in particular.

- Regarding the potentially most viewed video, I am just stating facts. The official YouTube account of the New Democracy student wing has no video with more than 52,000 views, while one of the independent parties has a video with 63,000 views. This is an objective statement, I think.

-Regarding the best result up to date (29.9%), I checked the entire database, and I was not able to find any better result. If anyone else is aware of a better result, I will be happy to be corrected.

- The database I am using is the one of the communist student wing. The only reason I am doing it is because there is no other database available though! As far as I am aware of, this is the only database with detailed results since 2004.

Regarding original research:

- The introduction relies on published research.

- The information about each one of the 4 movements comes from reliable media.

- The only “original research” I did was summing “other left”, “other right” and “other” to calculate the total percentage in the Timeline section. Everything else is documented.

These are my 2 drachmas! ( I mean… cents!) I am happy to be corrected, and I am also more than happy to hear suggestions for improvement. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read the article!

(PS: As the author, my opinion is to KEEP the article.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered some data about the media I mentioned:

According to this source https://www.moneyreview.gr/society/13952/kathimerines-ekdoseis-kai-neolaia-gr-mazi/, neolaia.gr had 1,000,000 monthly visitors and had published more than 110,000 articles in 2021.

According to this source, neolaia.gr has 900,000 monthly visitors and 4,500,000 page views in May 2014. https://www.advertising.gr/advertising-2/paramedia/rekor-episkepseon-gia-to-neolaia-gr-55244/

Regarding alfavita.gr, this source ranked it 5th in 2020: https://edessaikoskosmos.gr/eidisis/poia-einai-ta-megalytera-eidiseografika-site-se-episkepsimotita-stin-ellada/

I am not claiming that these sources are 100% reliable and that the numbers are 100% accurate, but we are definitely talking about serious media that have an impact in Greece. There are not student websites, these are serious nationwide media. (The same applies to Luben.tv and Neopolis.gr as explained earlier.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: "While relatively rare" and the fact that they gather less than 10% of the vote isn't notable here. Could put a brief mention in an article about the political process of Greece, but most of these Movements seem to come and go fairly regularly. The sourcing is simply confirming their existence at a point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K35DG-D

K35DG-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; merge with University of California, San Diego#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not Merge it with a merge tag instead of an AFD tag then? Still think it should be merged, it’s just a weird choice not to use the tag. Danubeball (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No support for delete, just a vague comment on merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Television stations meet GNG based on their publicly available license application alone. There's an SNG that explains this but its name eludes me. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva in the emblems of educational establishments

Minerva in the emblems of educational establishments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Largely unsourced, no evidence of notability per WP:LISTN. PROD contested with I think the article text does a decent job of making an argument that as the goddess of wisdom Minerva would be relevant to symbolism of higher education, which is not how list notability works at all - the article itself requires sources to prove the list's merit, not people's analysis of unsourced text, and I'm not even sure what they're referring to * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Education, and Schools. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find several articles by individual institutions explaining the significance of Minerva in their logos/seals, but I can't find anything discussing the topic in the aggregate. As nom said, this is a failure of WP:NLIST. It's also mostly unsourced and the few sources are mostly about individual entries in the list. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively and redirect to Minerva#Universities and educational establishments as WP:Alternative to deletion. As WeirdNAnnoyed stated, sources for examples can be found, a very few are in the article now, and there is some brief commentary here and there, like here. Like that, the list is preserved in the history in case anyone would like to use that to start a search for sources or the like, and the mentioned paragraph at Minerva is not quite left hanging. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]