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:

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

Phinma Education

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

WP:CORPTRIV, press-releases, no reliable sources and coverage Cinder painter (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Byng Arts Mini School

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

Delete or merge and redirect to Lord Byng Secondary School, per WP:ORG and WP:PROMO.

The Byng Arts Mini Program is a notable part of the school and the Vancouver school system, but it is not significant enough on its own to merit a separate article. The Vancouver school district has many other mini school programs in other schools, and while the Byng Arts Mini Program has unique aspects to it, the coverage available isn't enough to establish it as especially notable.

The version of this article before I edited it had two in-line citations; most of the article has been unsourced for over a decade and a half. Although more sources were added for existing content on the day of this nomination, most of the article remains unsourced and reads like a directory or guide for applicants to the program. This is not what Wikipedia is for, and the Byng Arts website serves this purpose already and in a more detailed manner.

If a merger is decided, reliably sourced and encyclopedic content should be merged into the Lord Byng Secondary School article. Merged material should also be checked for 'academic boosterism', which I would argue is present throughout the near entirety of the article. Yue🌙 05:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Yue🌙 05:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Education Reform in Kentucky

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

This is an old Wiki Ambassador Program article, and has all the worst tendencies of such articles. Issues are as follows:

Though the titular subject is a notable one, it's not clear why it should be separate from History of education in Kentucky
The text is of low quality and reads very much like a high school paper, not like a proper WP article. It's basically a long three-point essay.
It's at least a decade out of date.
It contains no discussion of important topics like the very important 1990s education reform, the CATS test and its successors, or the 2024 referendum, apart from one sentence at the begining
It makes vague statements about AP classes not specific to the topic, or summarizes old opinion pieces, without providing any useful information.
Sources range from mediocre (local news articles) to abysmal. One of them now links to a spam site.

There is no part of this article that would be worth incorporating into the history article, nor any other article, nor to any future rewrite of this article. Any editor who wishes to write a coverage of this topic, and the relevant points in #4, would be better off expanding History of education in Kentucky#Since 1990. Nicknimh (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit: I will add that Education in Kentucky#Reform has decent coverage of this topic, though it could use an update. Nicknimh (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a badly-hidden WP:COATRACK for charter/voucher school programs and forced AP programs and outside of that just is unabashed activism to remove power from the Kentucky Department of Education to pacify special interests. A very poor article. Nathannah • (chatter) 02:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kentucky has an interesting education history; in the late 1980s, the entire state education system was found to violate the state constitution! But this is an essay. A couple of references could survive in History of education in Kentucky but little else. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And there's also Amendment 2 failing in 2024. Yes, plenty of history and neither article has any of it. Uncle G (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Education, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly an unencyclopedic essay. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:COATRACK. Per nom, there's nothing to salvage in this article, so I think the best option is to remove it from the platform.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of learned societies

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

Indiscriminate collection of links to Wikidata, a user-generated database, which is not a reliable source. There is more to say about this particular list, but I am not going there because that would likely just distract from the main point. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Organizations, and Lists. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. We should not be importing content from Wikidata, and that is the entirety of this list. It does not meet our standards for verifiability through reliable sourcing. And even for the entries that come with sources from Wikidata, they are of dubious independence from their subjects, generally formatted badly and unfixable by Wikipedia editing as the bad formatting comes from Wikidata. This should go as well for List of learned societies in the United States and List of learned societies in the United States, which have exactly the same issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems to me that there are two issues. First does the list meet the criteria of WP:NLIST and second is it a useful thing for navigation per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. On the latter point, this is a long list of wikilinks which is a recognised form of navigation, other examples include List of banks (alphabetical). Returning to the former point, the question is whether the list is of notable things to the extent that having the page helps with a user navigating the encyclopedia. On this point I'm currently undecided. JMWt (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So, returning to think about this some more. WP:NLIST states One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source further nothing that the entirety of the list does not need to be noted just the group of things. So it would appear that a simple way to establish if a list of learned societies is notable is to see if reliable sources consider them as a group. Here are some references that do that 1 and 2 and 3

Clearly Learned society is a notable idea and reliable sources have considered them as a group. It also seems likely that a list sorted by country consisting of many blue wikilinks would be useful for navigation - for example by a reader wanting to see which learned society exists in their country.

JMWt (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Si Ri Panya International School

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

Not meeting WP:NSCHOOL; directories and primary self published sources Insillaciv (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nazrul Sena School

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

No evidence of notability (contested PROD) — Voice of Clam (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. Mehedi Abedin 16:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collabrification

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

Article about non-notable neologism which seems to exist to promote a research direction from one specific research group. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KAD ICT Hub

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

Promotional article for a non-notable, WP:MILL local tech training facility. Sources are promotional and often unbylined churnalism ([1], [2], [3]), WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([4], [5]), an article based entirely on an interview with the subject's founder, and an affiliated testimonial. Nothing else qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Technology, and Nigeria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this pass WP:ORGCRIT from the current sources and a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don’t agree with the assessment that this article from TechpointAfrica is an unbylined churnalism at all but I’ve found myself on the delete !vote because I was unable to find more sources. I’d be willing to change my !vote if more sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small IT school. Inherently non-notable. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 16:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EUROAVIA

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Association of Aerospace Students * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ICFAI University, Raipur

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

Non-notable university, created directly in mainspace pre-ACPERM and pre-WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I'm not finding any sources about the school from a search, and the article's always been badly-sourced, generally to the school's own website. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. No independent sources on the page with any significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– The only source is their own website, which is a dead link. Other searches show only trivial mentions. EmilyR34 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no sufficient coverage. The current citation is primary. Drushrush (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye Project

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

Not enough independent sources. Some sources are directly from The Private Eye Project or from Kerry Ruef, its founder.

The Ed.uab.edu source is from attendees of a Private Eye talk.
The Stone and Barlow book is a collection of essays including one by Ruef about Private Eye.
The Microscopy Today source is an article by Ruef.

Other sources just briefly mention Private Eye as something that exists. One is a defunct storefront. The only independent sources that have something notable to say about Private Eye are the WBHM article and possibly the book by Robert Bernstein, which I don't have. There isn't enough here to write a neutral article. Truthnope (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Philosophy, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi School of Occult Sciences

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

An article about an enterprise, created by a new editor along with a new attempt to place an article on the founder (which is blocked following multiple prior deletions). The given references are primary; no evidence provided or found to indicate that this private school has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Delhi. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Created to make the article of founder more notable (which was deleted previously per nom.) and also it lacks sig cov. in reliable sources TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom , Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG for this unrecognized Private school.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Lacks coverage in Wp:RS (Secondary). Zuck28 (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– The article attempts to claim importance, so it can't be speedily deleted. But it definitely fails to meet WP:ORG because there is not enough coverage in reliable sources. EmilyR34 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City Honors High School

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

Fails WP:GNG, like other school articles I have submitted, this article sounds like WP:PROMO, as the page sounds like it may have been written by the school themselves. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:13, 13 February 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 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and California. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 201.227.220.57 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Donalds

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG as none of the posts they've held are notable for an article, with most notability appearing to be because she is married to a U.S. Representative, going against the principle of WP:NOTINHERITED. Most references do not provide WP:SIGCOV or are not independent of the subject. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Education, United States of America, and Florida. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, due to her rather high profile as an activist. The subject gets quite a few newspapers.com hits. No objection to moving to draft for improvement to a clearly encyclopedic level of coverage. BD2412 T 01:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a delete. I see maybe two articles referenced that actually focus on the subject. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the conservative media have created a lot of stars but they never bother to document anything about them. Why, you might ask. I used to work with somebody who had a show on Trinity Broadcasting Network, and they never got to asking any pointed questions because they were Peyton Place meets Harper Valley. My co-worker, by the way, remarried his ex-wife to spite his girlfriend. I'm not casting any aspersions on the subject, I'm just explaining why there is a lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a 4000 word profile of her in Mother Jones, in addition to lots of Florida newspaper coverage going back many years. This coverage is not inherited from her husband, and it's independent of subject. I'm the author of the original article, and several others of this type about Florida public figures such as Kent Stermon. The conservative movement promotes a bunch of people without conventional credentials of notability, and their backgrounds ought to be discoverable by the public via sources that aren't self-promotion. Donalds is a perfect example. 40,000 page views in the last 90 days.

Court Liberty (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Court Liberty. The Mother Jones profile is unambiguously significant reliable source coverage. Jfire (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source analysis would help as I don't see this Mother Jones article in the article itself and we have conflicting assessments of sources. I'm surprised no one mentioned the editing by ErikaDonalds on this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think her spats in the media are what we need for notability [6] (I'm unsure if that's even about the same person), [7]. She seems to be good at agitating people, but that's hardly enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable yet, but potential with more substantive accomplishments. Her background is not relevant to notability in this case. Notability is not inherited. The wife of a sitting US Representative from Flolrida holding a fund raiser where Donald Trump shows up is just a Florida fund raiser. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to confirm, you don't think the 4000 word profile of Donalds in Mother Jones constitutes significant coverage? Jfire (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about significant coverage. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's look at the coverage here, starting with the 'meh' ones:
- Florida Politics SigCov, but not indicative of notability. Florida Politics is a website that has been accused of using 'pay to play' tactics for coverage.
- News-Press article is a passing mention in a story on her husband
- Heavy is not a reliable source to build an article upon
- She's also gotten a lot of coverage in Fox News (ie [8]) which is again poor quality but perhaps indicative of her notability.

There's a case that some of those articles could contribute to notability. But we don't need to make it. Better quality sourcing exists:

- Business Observer seems ok
- she gets substantial coverage in this NYT profile of her husband. Same with The New Republic
- and in this New Yorker article (not about her husband)
- Mother Jones article is undoubtedly reliable sigcov, if perhaps somewhat biased.
- and finally, a decent amount of coverage in your standard florida publications (ie [9], [10], [11], [12]). She did dramatic things as school board/school choice advocate. It naturally got coverage.

Unless I'm missing something major, there is a substantial amount of coverage of Donalds here, far more than we would expect for a standard congressperson's spouse. A decent amount of it is of her own activism. NOTINHERITED is not a shortcut for ignoring existing coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's hard to ignore the Mother Jones and New Republic articles. The local school board stuff doesn't count, the stuff with her husband doesn't count, most of these sources I don't actually think qualify, there's definite SPA/INVOLVED editing going on, but there's just enough sourcing. Draftifying may be the best option tbh. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean ‘doesn’t count’? It’s still sigcov in reliable sources. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local government officials are not Wiki-notable for being local government officials if the only sourcing is local, that's long standing consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ No one is arguing that she's notable for being a local government official. No one is arguing that she's notable for being the wife of a US Representative. She's editing her own page once a year as self-promotion, but those are transparent and quickly reverted--hardly a reason to delete the page. Five profiles in national publications? 200,000 pageviews in the last year? Come on guys. Court Liberty (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Struck double vote. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Havelock Academy

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

Tagged as uncited since 2017, this is a secondary school like many others with no particular claim to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to WP:HEY effort by Tacyarg, the article has been expanded and citations now verify the subject meets WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG as with pretty much any other British secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added some content and references. More than I would like is local newspaper coverage, but it's also been discussed in Parliament and in a research report, and the local coverage is still independent and significant secondary coverage. It has some notable former pupils whose attendance at the school can be referenced. I think it meets WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG & WP:NSCHOOL. Drushrush (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Ngā Taonga Tūturu ki Tokomaru

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

Only reliable coverage I can find is this: [13]

Don't see any other reliable SIGCOV of this school, PROD was contested. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your original PROD nomination said that you found two independent sources - what happened to the other one? Turnagra (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[14] doesn't contribute anything to notability Traumnovelle (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Normally I'd agree with deletion or redirect, but school is notable as the first full-immersion Māori medium school in Te Tai Rāwhiti. Here is another source, the Te Karere story on the school's 30th anniversary [15]. Paora (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple news agencies covered the school's anniversary, which along with its status as the first kura kaupapa in the region is more than enough to demonstrate notability IMO. Turnagra (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What other news agencies? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TVNZ/Te Karere, as posted by Paora, in addition to Te Ao News posted by yourself. Turnagra (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed multiple to mean more than two. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
multiple, (adj.) consisting of, including, or involving more than one. Turnagra (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sırrı Yırcalı Anatolian High School

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

There is only one good source in the Turkish article https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ege/turkiye-birincisi-bahce-10794778 and nothing in this article to explain how the school is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, There is a very detailed article in the [16] source. This is [17] rebuilding article. It is first Anatolian High School in city. May be this sources can help. İmmortalance (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We commonly delete middle and high school articles much better sourced than this page. Nothing presented directly detailing the institution, just discussion of the building process. BusterD (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohi-ud-Din Islamic Medical College

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

There are a few mentions like [18], [19] ~~but this is enough in-depth enough to pass WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)~~ it lacks in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Quick search and and got quite good references [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] . And here are some urdu news papers references [27] [28] [29] [30] Behappyyar (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions and routine news reports are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's your opinion. I found these references right for the vote to Keep. Another thing I have seen that it is the first medical college either in Public or Private sector of Azad Kashmir. Some how that's also makes it notable. [31] [32] [33] Behappyyar (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have shared primary references. Please provide secondary sources to prove the notability. Gheus (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thinks these five to seven references are enough to establish notability. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

There are more references but they may fall into primary categories, but we can use them in the article.

By the way, I voted to keep on the base of these references. Now let's wait for more votes. Whatever decision is made will come out. Behappyyar (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of companies-related deletion discussions. Gheus (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful of sources in the article and here in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My BEFORE is hampered by my inability outside English, but what I'm seeing presented is almost entirely directory stuff, not much more than the org's website itself. As an aside, this medical school is very new and not all schools which exist are notable. BusterD (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University. Appears to be the medical college of the University. From the sources above and my own searcing I see at least two RS pieces with SIGCOV dealing the college: The Express Tribune discusses a student protest at the college in 2011 and Nawa-i-waqt, largest Urdu language paper in Pakistan, reporting on a 2021 protest at the college. In 2013 the Express Tribune reported the college was barred from accepting students, along with other institutions. However, there does not appear much more than this - most of the sourcing cited to date is directories or not reliable. Sourcing does not justify WP:OKFORK, WP:NOPAGE applies. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Robert Foster Cherry Award (via WP:PROD on 21 January 2025)

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Education

Proposed deletions