Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education

WP:DELSORT/EDU

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:

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.
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:

Purge page cache

watch

Education

Xylem Learning

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

This company does not meet WP:NCORP requirements. The sources are merely press releases and therefore, not independent as they fit the description listed at WP:NEWSORGINDIA and they do not provide the stringent sourcing required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The rest of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE due to physicswallah investing in the company. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to resolve it United Blasters (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Requesting you to not to delete the article. And inviting more editors. United Blasters (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of engineering programs in the California State University

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

This topic does not apepar to be independently notable as a grouping as there are few, if any, sources about this specific grouping of academic programs. I also have concerns about synthesis, the general maintainability of a listing as detailed as this one, and the specific format chosen in the present version (a table too wide for the screens of most readers). ElKevbo (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, Lists, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Even if the topic were notable (which it doesn't appear to be), this isn't encyclopedic content. Robminchin (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is essentially a very high-quality WP:CATALOG, but a search for inherent notability behind CSU's engineering programs yields little to nothing other than just the programs themselves. Ranking websites, CSU sublinks, etc. don't justify notability, and those are just about the only things covering this subject. GuardianH (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a university enrolment guide. Ajf773 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Style Design College

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

An article about a purported, and certainly long defunct, educational "institution" (at best, a company). There are no reliable sources about it, and its website is long dead (and subsequently usurped by various advertisers). Wayback has an archive of its site from 2016 here. There it claims to be an institution of higher education, yet doesn't mention the names of any staff or give any sign of a campus, phone number, or anything else to suggest it's anything more than a trivial website run by mystery people.

There are various claims made about it in the article's history, but with poor to no reliable sources. So I think this was, at best, a non-notable training company selling courses over the internet, with questionable accreditation. It's certainly defunct now. It wasn't, and isn't, notable in any way, and the article isn't supported by any kind of reliable source.

Note that an earlier (but no better) incarnation of the article (created by user:Styledesigncollege) was speedied in 2008. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Education, Schools, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ivy League business schools

AfDs for this article:

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

There do not appear to be substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner; compare with List of M7 business schools which does appear to mirror an existing list of business schools. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Schools, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://fortune.com/education/articles/wharton-is-first-ivy-league-business-school-to-launch-a-hybrid-executive-mba-program/

https://execed.business.columbia.edu/about

https://www.inspirafutures.com/blog/ivy-league-business-schools

https://www.businessinsider.com/mba-jobs-search-consultancies-offers-business-school-careers-2023-11

https://greatcollegeadvice.com/admissions-expert-on-studying-business-in-the-ivy-league/

https://poetsandquants.com/2024/08/30/why-this-ivys-top-ranked-business-medical-schools-are-partnering-on-a-new-masters-degree/

https://www.highereddive.com/news/with-hbx-rebranding-harvard-puts-the-online-back-in-online-business-scho/545615/

https://poetsandquants.com/2022/01/17/10-business-schools-to-watch-in-2022/

https://www.essence.com/news/wharton-students-average-american-salary/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/entertainment/ciara-harvard-business-school-trnd/index.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-be-a-student-at-columbia-business-school-2012-6

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444180004578016233463881890

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/05/business/profile-at-wharton-theyre-practicing-what-they-teach.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1987/10/15/columbia-business-school-no-room-for-mr-chips/e9970a88-af8e-477a-a6e1-a64853202504/ 68.175.0.155 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nearly all of those sources are about individual schools and not the entire collection of schools, it would be helpful if you would explain to us how you think they inform this discussion. Please remember that this discussion is only about this list article, not the article about each school. ElKevbo (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I agree with the "keep" outcome of the three prior AfDs that this meets notability for a list article. At least five sources talk about Ivy League business schools as a group--not the best sources but usable. What I don't like is a list article that consists of only six items. I would not be upset if there were a way to merge this table into another article about the Ivey League colleges but I can't find a good option. The phrase Ivy League originally applied to a group of private schools but is now used as the name of a collegiate athletic conference (which is what the Ivy League article is about). Rublamb (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be very critical of sources for this topic given the immense industry of consultants, tutors, and scammers who write about anything "Ivy League" solely to promote themselves and write without any depth, rigor, or interest. ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Ivy League Business School" has been broadly used in the cultural lexicon for several decades, as justified by the sources provided. It is a useful term for prospective students because it conveys value to employers and business professionals, who often associate significant prestige with an education from an "Ivy League Business School." This term commonly refers to institutions such as Harvard, Columbia, Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth, and others.

On the other hand, the term "M7 Business School" was coined in 2015 by the website Poets & Quants (source: Poets & Quants article). This website profits directly from admissions consulting firms that advertise on its platform. While admissions consulting firms have capitalized on the popularity of the "M7" designation, data shows that Ivy League Business Schools, on average, have higher starting salaries and lower acceptance rates compared to M7 schools.

If there is any concern about the validity of these terms, perhaps the article titled "List of M7 Business Schools," which was created within the past year, should be reconsidered for deletion. 68.175.0.155 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need significant coverage of a topic from multiple, reliable, and (ideally) independent sources. Being "used broadly in the cultural lexicon" is not sufficient.

If you think a different article should also be nominated for deletion, you are welcome to nominate it. I agree that the sources for the M7 list are marginal at best and a deletion discussion could easily go either way. ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culural lexicon is just one example. See previous discussion. 86.62.29.106 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: I think this is the correct question to ask when evaluating this article. It would be worthwhile to evaluate the publishers of these sources. Although, there might be more reliable sources that have similar content. I'll see what I can find. Rublamb (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The issue here is the notability of the subject, rather than the quality or usefulness of the article. The subject lacks inherent notability and, as already pointed out, there are sources for business schools individually, but not collectively. There are hardly any articles talking about Ivy business schools as a whole, and so the widespread, independent secondary coverage usually required to justify notability isn't satisfied here. GuardianH (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply believing a topic is not notable is not justification to pretend that a subject doesn't exist. See previous thread. 86.62.29.102 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 2 through 5 discuss Ivy League business schools as a group, not just idividual schools. That meets notability for Wikipedia and for a list article which is the standard to apply to this AfD. We do not consider the usefulness of an article as part of a AfD as that is totally subjective. Rublamb (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This grouping appears to be based on inherited notability from the patent universities rather than being about the business schools themselves (which appears to be a key distinction between this and the M7 grouping). The articles discussing this group seem to reinforce this, being listicles of the business schools at Ivy League universities rather than substantial coverage. Robminchin (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The Ivy league was established after many of the universities had established a business school. 86.62.29.106 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory search of scholarship in academic publications about business indicates that conceiving of the business schools at Ivy League universities (or "Ivy League business schools") as a group is something that happens in reliable sources. Non-exhaustive examples follow:
- Ted Tapper and Ourania Filippakou, "The World‐class League Tables and the Sustaining of International Reputations in Higher Education", Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31, no. 1 (2009): 55–66: In the United States it is the Ivy League business schools that provide the entry route into the inner sanctum of the key capitalist institutions
- Roland Deiser, Designing the Smart Organization: How Breakthrough Corporate Learning Initiatives Drive Strategic Change and Innovation (John Wiley & Sons, 2009): It is a colorful universe, which includes major players such as Ivy League business schools that provide top-notch executive education
- John Saunders, Veronica Wong, and Carolyne Saunders, "The Research Evaluation and Globalization of Business Research", British Journal of Management 22, no. 3 (September 2011): 401–419: For example, although the Ivy League business schools on America’s east coast are each hugely strong by world standards, they share resources across their marketing or finance PhD programmes.
- Catherine Paradeise, Jean-Claude Thoenig, Stéphanie Mignot-Gérard, Emilie Biland, Gaële Goastellec, and Aurélie Delemarle, "Relevance and Excellence in Higher Education Vocational Schools: Business Schools as Institutional Actors", in The Institutional Development of Business Schools, eds. Andrew M. Pettigrew, Eric Cornuel, and Ulrich Hommel (Oxford University Press, 2014): City has been very successful, mainly in finance. 98 per cent of its MBA graduates rapidly get a job, with salaries often higher than those of Ivy League business schools.
- Graeme Currie, Julie Davies, and Ewan Ferlie, "A Call for University-Based Business Schools to 'Lower Their Walls': Collaborating With Other Academic Departments in Pursuit of Social Value", Academy of Management Learning & Education 15, no. 4 (2016): 742–755: Ivy League business schools such as Harvard have advantages in terms of finance, facilities, and well-connected alumni to facilitate interesting collaborations.
- Peter Cappelli, Rocio Bonet, and Monika Hamori, "The Changing Ranks of Corporate Leaders", California Management Review 66, no. 2 (2024): 5–29: The Ivy League business schools, associated with higher social class in terms of the income and social status of their students, had a long head start on other MBA programs.

Non-academic reliable sources, like journalism, also group the Ivy League business schools, such as in these non-exhaustive examples:

- Natasha Singer and Duff Wilson, "Menopause, as Brought to You by Big Pharma", The New York Times, December 13, 2009: While Wyeth has faced periodic complaints about its blockbuster menopause drugs, the latest lawsuits have turned the company’s menopausal hormone franchise into the kind of case study dissected at Ivy League business schools.
- Eleanor Pringle, "Hotshot Wharton Professor Sees $34 Trillion Debt Triggering 2025 Meltdown as Mortgage Rates Spike Above 7%: 'It Could Derail the Next Administration'", Yahoo Finance March 3, 2024: Among the illustrious nameplates adorning the offices of Ivy League business schools is one Joao Gomes.

The business schools of Ivy League universities are also grouped together in nonfiction books published by major non-university presses (the following are non-exhaustive examples):

- Quinn Spitzer and Ron Evans, Heads, You Win! How the Best Companies Think—and How You Can Use Their Examples to Develop Critical Thinking Within Your Own Organization (Touchstone Books, 1999) Ivy League business schools are pitching techniques to "catch the new wave"
- Greg Farrell, Crash of the Titans: Greed, Hubris, the Fall of Merrill Lynch, and the Near-Collapse of Bank of America (Crown Publishing Group, 2010): Instead of hiring the best and brightest graduates of Ivy League business schools by waving the prospect of seven-figure and eight-figure pay backages, BofA preferred hiring aggressive young men and women from less prestigious schools, who were willing to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty on behalf of the bank, not for the promise of an obscene amount of money.
- Walt Bogdanich and Michael Forsythe, When McKinsey Comes to Town: The Hidden Influence of the World's Most Powerful Consulting Firm (Penguin Random House, 2023): Gary's labor force had little idea of what to expect from these highly paid consultants, some graduates of Ivy League business schools.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have a few degrees from one of these Ivies and I've literally never heard the phrase "Ivy League business school" so it is suspect for me right off the bat. I do think in most of the examples cites above, the references are passing, and are more about the university themselves than the specific schools. The article certainly might be useful, but it definitely isn't notable. Jjazz76 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this comparison, should we also delete articles discussing Public Ivy, Ivy League Medical Schools, Ivy League Law Schools if one has never heard the term? Also useful but not notable given prior comments is false. 86.62.29.110 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Wikipedia article on Ivy League business schools should be retained as it meets the platform’s notability criteria, including the requirement for significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. While some advocate for deletion based on a perceived lack of collective coverage, historical discussions and decisions (AfDs) have consistently upheld the article’s value. Notably, all Ivy League MBA programs except the Yale School of Management were established prior to the Ivy League's founding in 1954. This historical fact underscores the longstanding academic presence and significance of these institutions, separate from the Ivy League athletic consortium. Although this might prompt a reassessment of including the Yale School of Management in this particular grouping, it does not justify the deletion of the article as a whole. These schools are internationally recognized as some of the most prestigious universities, contributing significantly to both academic and cultural frameworks. This recognition justifies the notability of a collective article, as it embodies a widely acknowledged grouping within both academic circles and broader societal perceptions, meeting Wikipedia's standards for significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.62.29.110 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, recent sources added do indeed provide "substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner." 86.62.29.103 (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atlantic Coast Conference business schools

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

There do not appear to be substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner; compare with List of M7 business schools which does appear to mirror an existing list of business schools. ElKevbo (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Schools, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ACC is a sports conference. The fact that these universities have business schools, or medical schools, or engineering schools is utterly irrelevant to who their athletic teams play, especially with changing conference membership. Although there are related academic organizations that span these schools, it's rather embarrassing for the article that none mentioned have to do with the business schools. Reywas92^Talk 18:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of Big Ten business schools CrazyPaco (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet notability for a list article because it lacks sources that discuss this collection schools as a group. Also, organizing business schools by college athletic conferences makes little sense, especially since these are mostly graduate schools whose students are mostly not associated with undergraduate college athletics. Rublamb (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per previous comments and the illogical mixing of a sports conference, with a list of academic units. Same goes for the List of Big Ten business schools mentioned by User:Crazypaco. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Ten list is not included in Category:Lists of business schools so I didn't see it when I was considering this nomination. I'm not comfortable nominating it until this discussion has concluded as I don't want editors to think that I'm targeting these lists specifically or trying to "flood the zone" with nominations. ElKevbo (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a well-sorted list but it doesn't have the inherent notability to justify an article on its own. In addition to the other comments, searches for sources just reveal the program themselves, and the widespread, secondary independent coverage generally required for the subject doesn't seem to be satisfied here. GuardianH (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the ACC having expanded into an "Academic Collaborative" does go some way to explaining what appears at first glance to be organization-by-athletic-conference, there isn't any indication that this is actually notable as a collection of business schools. Robminchin (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have not found reliable sourcing that considers the business schools of the Atlantic Coast Conference as a group. Searches of journalism, scholarship, and books (the list of results here is misleading; checking the results shows that the hits are simply cases where "Atlantic Coast Conference", "business", and "school" are mentioned in the same book, not as an actual reference to the business schools of Atlantic Coast Conference institutions) provided no evidence this grouping of businesses is noteworthy. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Tribhuvan Secondary School

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

Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME or WP:NSCHOOL, sources are not independent and don’t provide SIGCOV coverage. GrabUp - Talk 17:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nepal. GrabUp - Talk 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government Engineering College, Ajmer

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

This article's subject does not appear to meet notability standards. The article contains no references except for a dead link from the school's website and I can not find and reliable sources mentioning it on the internet. Cyrobyte (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Rahmanpur Jamalia Muktab

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

Indian school that fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search failed to find any sigcov. The article seems to be a machine translation of the article on the Assamese Wikipedia,[1] which itself is tagged for references and the need to wikify. John B123 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Assam. John B123 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, couldn't find significant coverage of the school in English or Assamese (পশ্চিম ৰহমানপুৰ জামালিয়া মুক্তব) RS. Wikishovel (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Australia

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

This article is supposedly about an industry association for English language schools in Australia, but contains almost no information about the actual association. Instead, almost the entire article reads as an unsourced advert/guide for how to apply to English language courses in Australia. I wasn't able to find anything to suggest that the organisation itself would meet WP:GNG - their media releases are sometimes quoted in specialist publications, but there doesn't seem to be any secondary SIGCOV. The title could potentially be turned into a redirect for either English Australians or Australian English? MCE89 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MCE89 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Henry District High School

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

Vintage article from when schools had a free pass. This is a non notable school. Fails WP:NORG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Kentucky. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Covington#High_schools: as an WP:ATD. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Covington#High_schools: as an WP:ATD per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon County Schools

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral return to Draft, so we are at AfD. Schools and school districts are no longer inherently notable. Fails WP:NORG as presented here. Suggesting Draftify pending further work. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Kentucky. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go, Baby!

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, even with the primary sources shown, simply listing IMDB and Disney deprives this article's notability TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the most recent IP to contest the redirect created by the last nomination at least partially pointed out, all that has changed since that nomination is that the subject is no longer included in the list of programs broadcast by Disney Jr., and hasn't been since 2022. That, to me, indicates that retaining this in any capacity is no longer warranted (unless another redirect target surfaces). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Disney, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Josh_Selig#Filmography: listed there; addresses the concern raised above. -Mushy Yank. 12:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WNYT (internet radio)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Internet radio station; just two sources; TV station in Albany should be primary topic. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Education, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first AFD. College radio station that was on the air for decades; while the article could certainly use some work, the topic is notable. 162 etc. (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Association of Private Colleges and Universities

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

Has been tagged with being un-notable for seven years, without improvement. I could not find independent or secondary sources. LR.127 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Malaysia. LR.127 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva Project

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

The notability seems redundant with Minerva University. 🄻 🄰 15:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, United States of America, and California. 🄻 🄰 15:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article should focus on demonstrating its notability with independent, reliable sources and maintaining a neutral tone. Adding more detailed information about its programs, achievements, and impact, while following Wikipedia's style guidelines, would improve its quality and relevance. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taker Bazar High School

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

There is no evidence that the school is notable. Searches in English and Bengali found no independent, reliable sources. Begumganj Upazila, the sub-district in which the school is located, would be a poor redirect target because we should not simply list there all of the 95 schools in the upazila. Wikipedia is not a directory of all schools that exist or have ever existed. Worldbruce (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Global School Dubai

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that are not reviews, guides or PR pieces using the same images. The sources do not pass the WP:SIRS check and fails NCORP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject have enough media coverage such as from The National, Which School Advisor, Which School Advisor, Which School Advisor etc. However, other sources are just passing mentions. Mysecretgarden (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysecretgarden, if you were familiar with WP:SIRS and had evaluated the sources properly, you would know that the first source you linked is a passing mention and the other three are PR articles. None of these are independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a private school in Dubai, so the nom. is correct to apply WP:NORG as the appropriate guideline and sources must meet WP:SIRS. In particular, coverage should be at WP:ORGDEPTH. The article in the national has a photograph from the school but does not even mention it in the article (which is about the rise in the general private school population). All the Which School Advisor articles count as one (multiple articles from a single source) and are also not independent. Likewise there is nothing in the article that meets SIRS and my searches have drawn a blank too. Not quite sure why this was not suitable for soft deletion. I don't see a former PROD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should be improved by establishing its notability with independent, reliable sources and ensuring a neutral, encyclopedic tone. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Alcuin House

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

This unaccredited seminary has an inactive website and does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All the (scant) sources in the article are to its own webpages or to affiliated sites. A BEFORE search turns up no evidence of notability. (It appears to have claimed accreditation at different through a diploma mill network and another school that claims accreditation but is also a diploma mill, but neither of these is evidence of notability, and indeed argues against notability as an educational institution.) Regardless, I found zero independent coverage of this organization. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Christianity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Can't find any (let alone reliable) non-trivial secondary coverage beyond this blog post and this forum discussion, which isn't helpful. This seems to be a safe delete. Jordano^5³ 20:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to WP:NORG. Seems to have been a marginal, unaccredited seminary. I was briefly concerned we were talking about the Alcuin Club! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NORG, appears to have been operated out of a townhouse according to the defunct organization's Facebook page. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NORG. I note that the editor who created this article[2] also created a separate article about a (supposedly) affiliated university, which I have also nominated for deletion for similar reasons. I also note that this editor has been inactive for over a decade now. Muzilon (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly defunct seminary for a breakaway denomination of the Episcopal Church (of which I'm a member). Bearian (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this article because I do not believe it meets notability guidelines.

Note that this article was previously deleted and then undeleted.

WP:EVENT - this content has no enduring historical significance. This does not have widespread national or international impact. This is arguably routine in the sense of shock news/water cooler stories/viral phenomena.
There are no lasting effects
The geographical scope is limited to Duke
The duration of coverage is limited to 2010 with one more article a few months later
There is one NYTimes article surveying the person in question but the focus is on the aftermath rather than the event in question or even the controversy in question
WP:NOTNEWS -
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style."
In the original AFD, the author wrote

This is not an article about the faux thesis, it's an article about the controversy that the faux thesis generated.

However, after 10 years, I think it is fair to say that one of the responses to that is quite accurate

But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?

There are also WP:BLP considerations but I am more reluctant to specifically cite policy because this is not a biographical article. I invite others to do so if they are more confident on the matter. Transcendence (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sexuality and gender, Education, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, there's no indication there is lasting interest in this event, even at Duke. Campus controversies like this seem somewhat common at this point. I don't think it's even worth a mention at History of Duke University#Recent history: 1993–present, and it also seems undue weight to list at even Template:Duke University. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this has already been brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the matter is properly cited to multiple reliable sources, including indeed The New York Times, which has covered the matter more than once actually: the one in the article is from 2018, eight years after the 'thesis' went viral, so the concern about a brief news event is incorrect. The matter has been covered by numerous other newspapers and news sites so its notability is not in doubt. ~~I'll add~~I have added a few more sources and descriptions of reactions by The Daily Telegraph and The New York Times (including in later years) for good measure, but the article is already correctly sourced and summarizes the story clearly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable sources confirms this event's lasting notability. Add doi:10.1177/1045159514558412 and this to the list of sources. Esculenta (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added both of those, and came across yet more useful sources when I did so. One other point: the 2010 AfD only had sources from that year, so it was actually too early to tell if the matter had a wider effect. We now have five substantial sources from later years, in multiple disciplines, so we know that it did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable sources (and artistic responses) confirm notability. However, I agree with "deletes" it probably does not belong prominently in Duke University templates any longer: the coverage and artistic response does not seem to emphasize this as a notable event for Duke specifically but rather for the Internet and contemporary sexual patterns in general, as an epitome. It may make more sense to attach this page to general Internet events or sexuality templates rather than to the Duke template. RowanElder (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with user above who pointed out the event got reliable news coverage eight years after it happened, making it notable. XwycP3 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

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

The Wikipedia page for IIMUN (India's International Movement to Unite Nations) does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as outlined in the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). While the organization claims widespread activity and recognition, the sources cited are primarily self-published or lack significant, reliable secondary coverage in independent publications. The majority of the references either originate from IIMUN itself, social media posts, or promotional material, which are insufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, the achievements mentioned, such as organizing large-scale conferences and initiatives like "Find a Bed," fail to receive substantial and consistent coverage from reputable third-party sources over a significant period. Without verifiable, independent, and non-trivial coverage, the subject cannot be deemed notable under Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, the article does not merit inclusion and should be considered for deletion. Likehumansdo (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 09:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, India, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom should have done the review just like their username Likehumansdo. This is a clear keep, it easily passes GNG, and I can't find any reason for deletion. It seems like the rationale was pulled out of thin air, almost like asking, "Generate a reason to delete this article?".--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes, moreover your whole comment is 100% AI generated without actually going through the sources. Can you point out any specific source which is not credible? IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. Ihsaan45 (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IIMUN clearly passes CNG, it is a clearly prominent organisation with enough credibility on the internet. Rjain1998 (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the nomination looks AI-generated. The page looks somewhat fluffy. I took you up on your challenge and sampled one source I looked at, "Billabong School: Bringing Change with Students' Holistic Development". September 2018. Retrieved 2020-02-29., and it looks completely useless. The source is not very reliable and is not relevant for what it is supposed to back up in the article. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk)
~~Ihsaan45 (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete: because it is promotional and lacks credible, verifiable citations. Charlie (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG.Ihsaan45 (talk)

~~Ihsaan45 (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep:: This organisation has articles from sources such as forbes and vogue, DNA, Times of India so should keep Rjain1998 (talk)

Rjain1998 (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been found to be turning a redirected page into a page about IIMUN's founder, potentially indicating a case of article hijacking. Charlie (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have run a thorough check of the resources listed, and have found that two sources lead to dead links, owing to the dated nature of the original webpages/websites. While I am in the processing of editing it, I would like to point out that multiple sources have been provided to justify the sentences stated, and most of them are from extremely credible news channels/publication houses in India, including 'Times of India', 'DNA', 'Free Press Journal', 'India Today', 'Forbes India' and more. Request you to take their authenticity into consideration. Rjain1998 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khair University

AfDs for this article:

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

It does not meet the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2020 and recreated in 2021, but in my view, the school has not achieved sufficient notability to justify recreating the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a ton of WP:NEWSORGINDIA to sift through but I found this. Their notability may be from being part of a diploma mill.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not about Pakistan. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable diploma mill. Scammed a lot of innocent students, attracted a lot of media coverage, and even military official received its degree to become NAB director. Very notable per CNMall41. 103.194.93.34 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than adequate sourcing available to satisfy the GNG + a bit of HEY...not sure how it's possible to miss the multiyear coverage of this notorious institution. While AfD is not clean up, the article could not be left to stand as it was and I have cleaned it up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can find meet the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It hit the news at one stage for being a diploma mill but most of that coverage was focussed on the crime, not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"at one stage"? There's multi-year RS coverage going back a decade (and more) in English (I've not done any searching in Urdu): eg 2021 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2015, 2004. Whether focussed on "crime" or "company"(?) (it's a university), the content of the coverage is not relevant to notability questions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to say that "the content of the coverage is not relevant". The guidelines that apply to companies/organizations (private universities) is GNG/WP:NCORP. See WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH which clearly speak to the *content* - for example, a requirement is for in-depth information *about the company* and the article must contain *independent* *content*. We don't care about the volume of "coverage", we actually care about the quality of content in order to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worth noting previous deletion was a soft delete on PROD/TNT basis, notability was not discussed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll also note that the previous AFD had participation from only one editor, the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Private universities should meet WP:NORG, which means that we need significant coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH about the institution. We have quite a lot of news coverage about the university, which, for instance, set up illegal campuses [3] and was indeed a diploma mill per the above. Coverage such as this [4] does indeed mention the university, but not at ORGDEPTH. This is a general problem. The sources are all about the mismanagement and illegal activities and not about the university itself. My feeling is that we don't have the sources for a university article, but we do have the sources for an article about either diploma mills in general, or perhaps about the event of this diploma mill in particular - and moreso because it seems to have created a bit of a storm in its resolution. I would be open to redirect targets. But I really cannot decide between straight delete of this article (which has nothing worth saving) or keep with the assumption this could be renamed and repurposed. The problem with deletion is not that the article would be deleted, but that the sources found in the AfD would lose visibility. The problem with keeping the article as it is lies in the possibility that this might languish and then be developed as if the encyclopaedic subject is the university, rather than the scandal. I am also reluctant to add a keep !vote when I think no consensus may be a better outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the result of the first discussion was soft delete means if some one want to work on it he can make an un deletion request. It was deleted back in 2020 and so far its notability has improved considerably. Behappyyar (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source review would be helpful as, at this point, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on my views, none of the sources qualifies for WP:INDEPTH coverage. Most are routine coverage of controversies about fake degrees, non-recognition, and other incidents, and they are not qualified for WP:NSCHOOL. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Eureka! (Canadian TV series) (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)