Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxbridge Academic Programs

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. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxbridge Academic Programs

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

I can find no significant, independent coverage of this organization, and see no other signs of encyclopedic notability. Having notable guest speakers does not make a group notable by association. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is in Peterson's [1] ; of course the info is derived from themselves, but so is everything else in that widely used manual. It's also in other apparently independent sources--see the GBooks result above. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in Peterson's [2] and other other publications [3] of respected organizations. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As User:DGG mentioned, the info in these publications is derived from the organisation itself. Merely posting a googlebook search link and palming it off for notability establishes nothing. The majority of the GBook search results are Peteresen in some form or another - and the publications should be reliable not the organisations behind the publications. Why is this organisation notable ? I have no quarrel with (and considerable respect for) User:DGG who openly declares his biases/POV on his User page ("keeping articles about academics & academic organizations from deletion"), but I can't say the same for you as yet because your past editing history is hidden. Annette46 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. No Notability whatsoever. Even the "Petersen" ref (Summer Fun Travel ??) exposes how shallow and non-notable this organisation is. User:Werner_Heisenberg is a one day old account with an illuminating edit history. Annette46 (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, editors who've accepted the invitation to contribute without registration often face such accusations... Werner Heisenberg (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wondered as to the reliability of the Peterson's-related book results, so I read through the early pages of one of the search results to find their editorial policy[4]. While the entries in their books are based on the results of questionnaires sent out to program directors, that information undergoes editorial review and secondary research by the Peterson's staff and the final entry is written in a standard format by Peterson's rather than simply being a reproduced press release (which is what I was concerned about). They also actively invite feedback earlier in the book, so I'm satisfied that, in addition to being a widely used source, they are also a reliable source for the supplied information.

A search through Google news archives also returns numerous local news articles, the editors apparently finding it newsworthy that local pupils have passed the entrance criteria and been accepted for these programs, or received awards while participating in them: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Apart from being secondary coverage, it's also evidence of the international scope of the organisation's activities, satisfying the alternate criteria for non-commercial organizations, which seems to be the best-fitting section at WP:ORG, with the book results and news articles being some evidence for general notability. Holly25 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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