Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education

WP:DELSORT/EDUWP: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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in education

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

Very likely AI generated, with manually added citations. User has uploaded AI generated text to multiple articles before. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Technology. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sample text: "potential to revolutionize learning processes, personalize instruction, and improve educational outcomes...improve student engagement, provide customized learning experiences, and streamline administrative tasks." Oh boy, I just won LLM bingo. As for sources, references 4 and 7 are real, but 7 never mentions AI at all, making it a case of SYNTH. Reference 13 also looks legit, though I don't have access to the full text to check its relevance. The others I didn't check but don't trust. AI in education is obviously a notable concept, but if the author can't put in the effort to write the article themself, why should the rest of us put in the effort to clean it up? Delete and let someone who actually wants to write an article write the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all of the referenced articles and books exist, but it seems unlikely that the sources are actually being used and accurately reflect the text. For one, [12] is referencing a 112 page book, but doesn't have page numbers for this list of 6 vague bullet points. Recon rabbit 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user has made multiple LLM generated edits to articles, and has only added sources when they've been reverted, with no changes to the text. Sources are likely randomly picked from a cursory google search of random keywords. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be what happened here too. Cirations added later, seperately, and with no changes to the text. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence_in_education&diff=1225283548&oldid=1225276997 Explodingcreepsr (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, AI-generated slop with citations retroactively added but not necessarily supporting the text. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no way this AI-generated garbage can form the basis of a useful article. There's nothing worth keeping here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is broadly accurate, although some subsections of "Applications" look redundant and the sourcing is pretty bad (notably as a result of writing the article backwards). It would probably be easier to make a good article from there by only deleting the most problematic content than from scratch. But since the consensus seems to be to delete the article, I have no problem with it. Alenoach (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being actively misleading to the reader and a detriment to the encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I recently editted WP:TNT to describe scenarios like this, where large portions/entire article is made of AI.

Better to start clean then try to double check every reference for hallucination. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Lotus Conglomerate

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

Article created as WP:NPOVFACT violation to disparage a WP:BLP [1]. Looks multiple unconnected companies listed under the same umbrella tied together to create an elaborate WP:HOAX and many sections unrelated to company. For actual company, WP:RECENT focus on a single event from the 5 years back, see talk page for details. Previous points removed, I believe remaining actual subject of article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Hence, recommend for deletion.Hibiscus192255 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Finance, Companies, Education, Sports, India, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been editing related articles from many months and I agree with above arguments made. This article’s creation seems a clear [WP:NPOVFACT], there are several unrelated sections and content in the article, minus which it doesn’t meet [WP:NOTABILITY] Rainbowpassion (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does look like article scope is bloated, then per WP:SBST, seems an otherwise minor organization that has received news coverage for only 1 event. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. The US website reference link provided seems like an unrelated organization. Wikilover3509 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned on the talk page, this article lacks proper referencing. It cites several irrelevant sources that do not mention the company. The article talks about two different companies: one based in Nebraska, USA, and another in Dubai, but there is insufficient evidence linking either to Kalki Bhagwan, his son NKV Krishna, or daughter-in-law Preetha Krishna. Additionally, some sections of the article are unrelated to the company. Notably, all sources referring to the company are from 2019, and there is no relevant information available about the company beyond that period.Moonlight2006 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Aligarh#Education. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Aligarh

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Other than two university entries, and one school, it is not a relevant list. WP:NOTDIR applies too with no standalone relevance of the list. Can be alternatively merged to Aligarh parent article's education section. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, India, and Uttar Pradesh. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aligarh#Education. I do not think it makes any better to merge the list that fails significant coverage with no reliable secondary independent sources and fails WP:NLIST. RangersRus (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with a redirect too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CougarTech

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

Not a notable group. A high school FIRST Robotics Competition team; no independent coverage in the article. [2] (a local weekly) was the best search result I could find. Covers multiple school districts, so neither is a plausible redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing to suggest its notability. The existing two sources in the article are as good as minus zero and there are no sources elsewhere to improve it. This clearly fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this time; lacking WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable group, fails WP:NORG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarla International Academy

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

Fails NSCHOOL, GNG and no SIGCOV found anywhere. Only source is a dead PRIMARY link. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ESNA European Higher Education News

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

Nominated on pl wiki for deletion as spam with possible hoax elements (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:07:17:ESNA European Higher Education News). It also seems to fail WP:NORG/WP:GNG. My BEFORE finds next to zero visiblity for this entity in GS/GB. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and Germany. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing fails GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Connections

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

I follow this channel and had the redlink watchlisted, so I was cautiously optimistic to see it turn blue. But unfortunately I don't think it's reached notability yet. The existing sources are all primary links to the channel itself, and a BEFORE search for others turned up only interviews on other YouTube channels I wouldn't consider sufficiently reliable (e.g. [3][4], a one-paragraph entry at [5] that's borderline for SIGCOV, and short summaries of videos like [6][7] that either aren't SIGCOV or aren't RS or both. Sdkb ^talk 00:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, and Technology. Sdkb ^talk 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I'm a fan of his youtube channel, but it's hard to find things about it. This seems like a RS [8], a few hits in The Verge which is a RS [9], [10] and this which I think is also a RS [11]. We probably have at least enough for a basic article about this person, or the youtube channel he hosts. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also a fan of his YouTube channel but the sources provided thus far are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately weak delete. The DigitalCameraWorld source above is the only one that qualifies for a full unit of SIGCOV, while the rest don't quite meet the mark, even when combined. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom - I don't think his channel has reached notability yet, no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draft - in addition to the sources provided by Oaktree b, I was able to find a mention in Consumer Reports [12] - but it is the exact type of "passing coverage" that does not impart notability. From what I can see the only source that imparts any notability is the Digital Camera World article, which covers a video by Alec in depth (rather than just mentioning it in passing - as the Verge, Consumer Reports, etc do). I would be interested in seeing the borderline The Physics Teacher coverage (just for curiosity) but I trust sdkb that it is borderline (the section of the journal that it's in - Websights - confirms that it's likely borderline). I have no opposition to moving to draft space or userspace if someone wants to "take care of it" for the chance further coverage is either found. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Bukit Bandaraya

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not satisfy WP:GNG; no significant coverage on the school. N niyaz (talk) 12:06, 13 July 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 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tried to PROD the article but since it was classified as AfD before I couldn't. Isn't the lack of any user to defend the article explaining that it lacks notability? (Addition) I also just looked at the first nomination, it seems that it is a conversation between two sockpuppets. Could an admin check it out? N niyaz (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:31, 20 July 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) 15:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources available. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Sir

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

This stub about an Internet personality whose channel is education based was recently accepted at AFC. I believe it to be a borderline acceptance, which is fine of itself. AFC reviewers role is to accept drafts which they believe have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. As a fellow AFC reviewer I believe that the subject is not verified to pass WP:BIO, and that the draft was below the acceptance threshold. On that basis I would not have accepted it. The referencing is independent, yes, but the content of the references is gossip column-like trivia, which simulates significant coverage, but which is not. I see the only way of resolving this is for the community to discuss it, hence AfD 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, Internet, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not going to vote here since my stance is clear, as I accepted the draft. At the time I saw the draft, it was not passing GNG, but I know the personality well and thought he might already have a Wikipedia article. When I found out he did not, I started to find significant coverages and added many that are currently cited. I respect Timtrent’s judgment, and we already discussed it on my talk page. We would like to get the community's views on the article. Lastly, I want to add that if the article can’t be kept, we can draftify it, as it has good sourcing, and the subject may gain more coverage to establish notability in the future. Happy editing. GrabUp - Talk 13:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Draftification is a perfectly acceptable outcome to me as nominator. I ought to have said that in the nomination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH - Subject has a reasonable claim to notability, and I don't see what draftifying would accomplish. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have done some research to find Hindi sources and interestingly found many that may establish notability.
*BBC Hindi | *News18 Hindi | *NewsNation | *AmarUjala | *News18 Hindi and *Dainik Jagran Hindi
In my opinion, the BBC Hindi one is a very powerful source with significant coverage. I will leave it to the community. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 08:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think its the time for voting Keep. Grab</spanw>Up - Talk 08:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : I can only find coverage about "criminal" activities [13], [14], but they don't seem notable and rather tabloidey... I don't find coverage of his streaming career, so there just isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Hey, can you comment on these Hindi sources I mentioned above, especially BBC Hindi? GrabUp - Talk 00:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The BBC source translates fine, seems like substantial coverage. With the rest of them, should be ok for notability.Vote amended above. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The BBC source says, to me at least, that the subject of the article does indeed pass WP:BIO. We have plenty of articles on internet educators, and this person is plenty notable in India. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. The Delete views carry more P&G weight than the Keeps. But even after four weeks, the Delete views failed to achieve quorum, let alone consensus. Owen× ☎ 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Seri Kembangan

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

Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines ; most of the secondary sources cited are paid materials by Multimedia University (see WP:SPIP.) N niyaz (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 8 July 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 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I cited most of the secondary sources in the article. I would like to ask the nominator for deletion N niyaz, is it possible to list some of the secondary sources that you claimed are paid materials by Asia Pacific University? KjjjKjjj (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay @KjjjKjjj I made a little mistake there, what I meant was Multimedia University. Also the school receives no significant coverage and most of the sources are just mentions. Unfortunately what's best is to make it a redirect.

https://www.wilayahku.com.my/smk-seri-permaisuri-antara-13-sekolah-angkat-mmu/

https://sinarbestari.sinarharian.com.my/ipt/sekolah-angkat-mmu-persiapkan-pelajar-ke-arah-digitalisasi N niyaz (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@N niyaz: If I'm not mistaken and correct me If I'm wrong, both of the sources you said have no mention of being paid. KjjjKjjj (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KjjjKjjj You could already tell by the topic and style of the writing that it is a press release/paid article. Trying to find a paid article disclaimer in the sources is just stupid. N niyaz (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple secondary sources, passes WP:NOTABILITY at it's barest. KjjjKjjj (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Checked the sources listed in English. None of them provide significant coverage, just mentions or sponsored content/press releases. Cannot check sources in Malay, hence weak. Tried to find some more coverage for this article, but failed. Vorann Gencov (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I disagree that "Trying to find a paid article disclaimer in the sources is just stupid", online content often includes a statement when it is sponsored content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although often it's not mandatory for them to declare it. The article

https://www.wilayahku.com.my/smk-seri-permaisuri-antara-13-sekolah-angkat-mmu/

https://sinarbestari.sinarharian.com.my/ipt/sekolah-angkat-mmu-persiapkan-pelajar-ke-arah-digitalisasi

is obviously a press release and not a reliable source. N niyaz (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school has high Chinese student number which is special as this school is unacknowledged by Chinese association.^[1]^[2] A search of "史里肯邦安国中" on Google showed some Chinese newspapers. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does that even make it special? LIKE I STRESSED, there is no significant coverage on the school, it isn't notable, and most of the sources cited is a press release/paid article. N niyaz (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "【暖势力】放下藤条感化"坏学生"．戴庆义改变问题国巾". Sin Chew Daily (in Chinese). Retrieved July 7, 2024.
^ "筹建多元化讲堂史中盼华社援手". 东方日报 [Oriental Daily News (Malaysia)] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2017-06-23. Retrieved 2024-08-04.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orsett Heath Academy

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge to Orsett Heath or Grays, Essex (as its not actually in Orsett Heath). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the academy plays a key role in the local community and its educational system, making it a relevant topic.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Can probably be covered on Grays,_Essex#Secondary_education. IgelRM (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sourcing available to meet WP:GNG as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there significant coverage beyond the October 2019 opening announcement? IgelRM (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page subject is important enough. Further notability likely to only increase as this is a new school. Rockycape (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for the Education of Needy Children in Fiji

AfDs for this article:

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

No real evidence of notability. The sources found in the previous AfD are all either dead and not archived or do not discuss the company in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, instead consisting of routine announcements of companies dontaing to them. While that's a noble goal it's not notability-establishing * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Fiji. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All coverage is WP:MILL. Not really anything about the company itself aside from funding announcements and press releases, which don't count towards notability per WP:ORGTRIV. The article is also in pretty rough shape and while I don't like deleting stuff for this reason, there simply isn't enough coverage out there to write a better article beyond a short stub. C F A 💬 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage out there, most of it appearing to be press-release-based churnalism. But I think enough of it goes beyond WP:ORGTRIV, for example, these piece in the Fiji Times that involve reporting ([15], [16]), and this piece in FBC News ([17]). There is also some mildly critical coverage that for sure wouldn't be from a press release, see Fiji Times ([18]) and FBC News ([19]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclemens1971 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first set of articles consists almost entirely of quotes from the organization hence fails WP:ORGIND. The second set does not discuss the organization in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we disagree about what constitutes sufficient depth. I think several paragraphs constituting the whole of a news story on a single organization counts; I would describe the two more critical stories in particular as delivering "a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" per WP:CORPDEPTH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sources support the article well and particulary the sources that include some negative press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockycape (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dclemens1971. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Pppery here that while it's close, the coverage in sourcing discussed above doesn't ultimately meet CORPDEPTH requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Raipur, Bankura#Education as a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garh Raipur Girls' High School (HS)

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

Seems very run-of-the-mill. Sources are all primary/government databases. No evidence of meeting WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the issue. Please close this discussion. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources updated,please remove afd. Arijit Kisku (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources has been added. Please close this discussion.Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have searched for sources and not found any. The current sources are not good enough. They are all primary, apart from possibly the teachers' journal, which I can't access. Leaning redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, but will wait to see if anyone else can find reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attached more independent sources. They are not government directories or any primary sources.They ate independet sources,so I request you to close the deletion discussion page. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for adding two more sources. They are still not reliable sources, though. This is a request to tender for building works. It is a primary source. I'm not entirely sure what this is, as a pop-up ad I can't remove blocks part of the screen for me, but it looks like some sort of school listing, probably commercial. Do you know if the school has been covered in any off-line sources - books about the history of the area, memoirs of staff or people who attended? As Pppery said in the nomination, so far all we have are primary or commercial sources, nothing independent or reliable that shows notability. Can you access the teachers' journal - do you know what that says about the school? Typically, deletion discussions run for at least 7 days, so this is unlikely to be closed before then, so that other editors can comment. Tacyarg (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to teachers' journal, but i can confirm, it's on page number 96, there is a teachers' information who was associated with the school. Arijit Kisku (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, as still lacking reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 17:50, 5 July 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) 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Primary and secondary schools

CHIJ (Katong) Primary

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

This school does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The current sources contain one which is primary and the others are from The Straits Times which whilst considered generally reliable per WP:STRAITSTIMES, I am not convinced they are enough to warrant this school having an entire article. This may come under WP:SCFT. Was formerly a redirect to List of primary schools in Singapore. 11WB (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Singapore. 11WB (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Matriculation Higher Secondary School

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

This article does not satisfy the criteria enlisted under WP:N. The template requesting for additional references has remained since 2014. The general tone of the article seems extremely promotional and has information that is likely written by people close to the subject. Kvinnen (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kvinnen (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any sources with significant coverage - SUN EYE 1 15:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St Elizabeth convent school Vellarikundu

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:NOR, WP:ORG. Fails everything! Schools don't have notability just because they are is an existing. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 13:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 13:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marwadi University

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is no independent coverage. The entire page is filled with promotional content and doesn't provide any useful information. Just mentioning a few controversies and using sources that only talk about those doesn’t prove an organization is notable under WP:ILLCON. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Gujarat. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temasek Primary School

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously deleted due to a lack of notability, and as far as I can tell nothing has changed in that regard. Could be restored back to the redirect to List of primary schools in Singapore. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect to List of primary schools in Singapore. No evidence of notability, no independent sources. We normally redirect articles for non-notable school where possible. Meters (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect-to List of primary schools in Singapore. I agreeable as an ATD. No SIGCOV from independent sources, at least in my websearches on english sites so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect status quo ante; fails WP:NSCHOOL. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as previously. About ten years ago, when I was rather more active here than I am now, I created a number of redirects (including this one) for Singapore primary schools because, while they seemed to generate a certain amount of interest, there seemed to be nothing sufficiently significant about them individually to attract the attention of usable independent sources. Regrettably, this seems to be the case here - the only source for the article is the school itself. And, while Wikipedia does tend to show some bias in favour of North American and western European subjects, while the school appears to be a good one, there is nothing currently in this article to suggest that we would regard a similar school in those areas as notable, either. PWilkinson (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Waverly School

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

Content is purely promotional, only non-dead links are from their own website Shredlordsupreme (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look for sources and found this book that discusses the school on page 43, and this LA Times article from 2007, plus a bunch of local reporting in Pasadena Now. I won't !vote, as either way I think it's pretty borderline. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- though I would somewhat agree with the findings of Pineapple Storage , though most seems not SIGCOV enough from my web searches so far, but the fact the school is well mentioned from multiple sources at the very least can be draftified to give time for it to improve.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Safa Public School

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

No referencing. Very little info and no signs of notability. Fails to satisfy WP:N, WP:NHS, WP:GNG as well as WP:CITE. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Telangana. jolielover♥talk 02:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to past failed PROD attempt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After conducting a thorough BEFORE search, I am not able to find references to meet general notability guidelines or demonstrate significant coverage about the topic. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage about the topic are found. Fade258 (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Arts, Careers and Technology

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

Almost totally unreferenced article about a school for which notability is not shown, nor found prior to nomination. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. While the school appears to serve a specific educational purpose, the sources provided are not sufficient to demonstrate significant, in-depth, independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Most of the content is primary, routine, or directory-style, which does not establish lasting encyclopedic notability. Setwardo (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without notoriety, fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG 200.46.55.99 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As with most high schools, this school has sufficient WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG, see here: News4, This is Reno, KOLO News (1), KOLO News (2), the Nevada Independent, and 2News. Even if they're not in the article notability is based on the availability of qualifying sources per WP:NEXIST. Looks like a failure of WP:BEFORE. (Editorially, this article should be stubified to remove the promotional tone and brochure-like copy, but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources above provide significant coverage of the school itself as an organization. They do cover individual programs and activities but that isn't sufficient for our purposes. We need big picture sources directly about the school as an institution, not just about a single program or department within the school or even just a single event connected to the school (which is what some of the above examples are). We have here local coverage of the school's aviation program and a fire fighting program and a cooking class in WP:ROUTINE news cycle coverage. A cooking class doing community service by making Thanksgiving turkeys is a great human interest piece but it isn't SIGCOV of the school, and a press release on the founding of an aviation program or coverage of large donations isn't either. Because of the limited scope of the stories to individual programs and the local nature of the coverage I don't think they could be considered in-depth coverage of the main topic and would fall under WP:NOTNEWS. The types of sources we need are histories of the school or independent analysis of the work of the school. That's not really what we have here. 4meter4 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, coverage of a school's programs is coverage of a school -- what is a school if not its educational program? Per WP:NSCHOOL, schools may pass the general notability guideline and are not required to meet WP:NORG. I reviewed and rejected more routine news items that appeared to be based on press releases; these appear to involve original reporting that provides WP:SIGCOV of the school to some degree. (I'm actually fairly impressed as to the depth of reporting compared to what notable schools often get.) Finally, as to your "local nature of the coverage" comment, GNG (unlike WP:NORG with WP:AUD) has no requirement for sources to come from beyond a single local area. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up note: You suggest that [t]he types of sources we need are histories of the school or independent analysis of the work of the school but WP:SIGCOV is defined as coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The actual guideline provides a lower bar than the one you have created here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't agree with that. We don't write about forests based on coverage of individual trees in the forest. At some point we actually need sources which talk about the forest directly or the result is WP:Original synthesis. We fundamentally can't have an article on a school without showing sources with significant coverage of the school as a whole. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." If we were building an article specifically on the school's aviation program I see SIGCOV here. I don't see SIGCOV of the wider school in these materials.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. However, separate from this conversation, insisting on published histories of schools or independent analyses of a school's work would impose a much higher standard than has been in place before, and I'd suggest a Village Pump conversation for that interpretation of SIGCOV rather than introducing it in an individual AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 I don't see the need to take this elsewhere because I don't perceive this as a novel interpretation but a faithful interpretation of WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH policy. To put it simply, we need sources directly about the topic in evidence. If the topic is Harvard University the sources need to be about the university as a whole. If all we had were sources about Harvard's biology and chemistry programs we couldn't build an article about the entire university just based off of those. The same principle applies here. "Directly and in detail about Academy of Arts, Careers and Technology" means just that. There needs to be sources which address the main topic directly not just a small aspect of the main topic.4meter4 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universities and colleges

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Group of Institutes

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

Fails WP:GNG/ORGCRIT. Relies on primary, self-published and marketing sources. LvivLark (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and India. LvivLark (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think the Sigma University sources are self published :( ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 21:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. This is not a single article, but an inchoate, cluttered cacophony of several articles about the same topic. A completely new article has to be written. Bearian (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree that this might need to be blown up and started over at this point per WP:TNT. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sultan Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah International Islamic University

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

Highly non-notable private university. I can barely find any WP:RS mentioning this university, the source cited on the article itself is the university's website. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Hun Narkphanit (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2025 (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/2025 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with the nomination. Despite a search, I couldn’t find any reliable sources to support notability. The topic appears to lack significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. Editor1769 19:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed this nomination to include elements that were previously omitted (it appears to have been copied and pasted from another nomination rather than implementing {{subst:afd2}} as is intended). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Right now, it appears to be 100% WP:OR. The Malaysian article is likewise unsourced, so translating that (as tagged) won't help. It could re-created in the future when it gets more coverage. Bearian (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Adding here that this AFD was started by a now blocked sock

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of the blocked nominator. If there is no further participation I would close as a soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:RS per the above, especially Bearian who's very diligent about searching. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a few hours of searching and was unable to find coverage that satisfies WP:RS WP:SIGCOV for the purposes of supporting a claim to notability. Because of this, I find that deletion is the appropriate outcome as the article subject fails to satisfy notability requirements per GNG. Zach^H007 01:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

School or university organisations proposed for deletion

Taylors Lakes Secondary College (via WP:PROD on 20 March 2025)

To check articles which are being proposed for deletion search by date at Category:Proposed deletion or see the summary of PRODs at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. It is common to find schools of all types on this list.

[1] "【暖势力】放下藤条感化"坏学生"．戴庆义改变问题国巾". Sin Chew Daily (in Chinese). Retrieved July 7, 2024.

[2] "筹建多元化讲堂史中盼华社援手". 东方日报 [Oriental Daily News (Malaysia)] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2017-06-23. Retrieved 2024-08-04.

[1]

[2]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education

Contents

Education

Artificial intelligence in education

White Lotus Conglomerate

List of schools in Aligarh

CougarTech

Sarla International Academy

ESNA European Higher Education News

Technology Connections

SMK Bukit Bandaraya

Khan Sir

SMK Seri Kembangan

Orsett Heath Academy

Foundation for the Education of Needy Children in Fiji

Garh Raipur Girls' High School (HS)

Primary and secondary schools

CHIJ (Katong) Primary

Prince Matriculation Higher Secondary School

St Elizabeth convent school Vellarikundu

Marwadi University

Temasek Primary School

The Waverly School

Safa Public School

Academy of Arts, Careers and Technology

Universities and colleges

Sigma Group of Institutes

Sultan Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah International Islamic University

Other school or university articles

School or university organisations proposed for deletion