Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education

WP:DELSORT/EDU

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Education

Alliance High School (Kenya)

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

Highschools are no longer considered to be inherently notable. This one fails WP:NSCHOOL. Referencing is abysmal. This is a WP:ROTM high school. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kenya. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olof Palme Primary School

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

Run-of-the-mill elementary school. Some minor local coverage but nothing establishing notability. — Moriwen (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and South Africa. — Moriwen (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GCS Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre

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

A straightforward WP:PROMO article and doesn't meet the WP:NHOSPITAL guidelines. Either redirect to Ahmedabad#Hospitals or Gujarat University. Charlie (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. Charlie (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft MakeCode

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has some mentions but would be better as a merge into one of the many Microsoft product lists such as List of Microsoft software. CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. CNMall41 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from, but I think the subject does have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet notability on its own. I’m open to improving the article with better references if that helps. A merge could work, but I’d prefer to try building it up a bit first—worth a shot before removing it entirely. Vinizex94🌍 01:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Arts Management and Technology

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

Non-notable research center. No independent and in-depth sources found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UsefulCharts

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

I was originally motivated to create this article since I am a fan of its content. Looking back on it, it is mostly poor sources or interviews or short coverage. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Companies. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First four sources (although first two of them short) seem to meet SigCov. They can't all be non-RS. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, there are several independent WP:RS that discuss the subject in depth including the Vancouver Sun. --hroest 17:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Z[reply]

Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing

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

In 16 years this article has expanded to little more than a single sentence. Notability is not currently demonstrated - the only citation is the official website, a primary source. – numbermaniac 08:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Astronomy, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swinburne University of Technology. Individual research centres within universities are rarely independently notable, and I couldn't find anything to suggest that this one is an exception. MCE89 (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Mercy Catholic Elementary School

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

Non-notable run-of-the-mill elementary school. Only independent coverage cited is a database entry; nothing beyond the school district found on search. Could reasonably redirect to Toronto Catholic District School Board. — Moriwen (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Christianity. — Moriwen (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: schools are not inherently notable, here there is no significant coverage that I can see and thus fails WP:NSCHOOL. --hroest 20:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:ATD and longstanding practice. Pertinent details can be added to the school board article which already has a mention of it. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Academy Canyons

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

Non-notable school, doesnt pass WP:NSCHOOL. The article seems to be AI generated as many others by this user and half of the links are not properly functioning. Overall there isnt a single WP:RS that covers this school either in the article or on Google/Google News. hroest 16:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. hroest 16:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of these are independent, reliable source SIGCOV of this school -- fails GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree per nom and Fade258 - mostly reads promotional Asteramellus (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Martin (philanthropist)

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies (ANYBIO) Old-AgedKid (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and promotes his works with puffery (Wikipedia:NOTPROMO) --ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed. I searched for more coverage, but haven't found anything significant. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet WP:GNG, a lot of the coverage is about the nonprofit and not about him. --hroest 17:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Zarzycki

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

Disputed Draftification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:NPROF. In an AFC review this was stated: "According to https://ludzie.nauka.gov.pl/ln/profiles/QAO46PMcoxU/publications he has a total of 8 publications; Scopus says 21 with 104 citations. This is far short of what we require to pass WP:NPROF. Note that being a Department Chair or Dean does not qualify him either." by Ldm1954, with whom I agree. This is WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, and Poland. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP created almost simultaneously in the English and Polish Wikipedias. At least for the English Wikipedia, he falls far short of satisfying any of WP:NPROF with a decidedly modest h-factor, publication record and no major awards. Originator (who uses two accounts, albeit acknowledging this) argued first that he passes WP:NPROF#C1, then changed it to a pass of WP:NPROF#C6 when he moved the page back to main after draftification. This despite an AfC comment that Dean's don't qualify and about publication history (subsequently removed by Laura240406 as AfC cleanup, but still there in the history). No attempt to repair other deficiencies to the article which are clearly tagged. While novice editors should have some leeway, it is not appropriate for them to make up their own interpretation of WP:NPROF.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation record on Google Scholar is difficult to separate from a different biologist with the same name but I agree that he appears to pass neither WP:PROF#C1 nor #C6, and we don't have any evidence or claim for any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein we don't have any evidence or claim for any other notability criterion, in this regard, kindly see my comments below. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In Poland, the President grants the academic title of Professor. This is a significant academic achievement, often awarded to individuals who have made substantial contributions to their field of study. This is a definite WP:NPROF #2 and #4 pass and I think if a source can be provided in this regard, then this can be kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per my comment above, this source (see PDF) confirms it and this conferment is a clear NPROF#2 as being a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national level". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not convinced by the argument brought forward regarding WP:NPROF. With regards to NPROF#1, his Scopus profile shows 21 total publications and a h index of 7 (note that there are at least 6 people publishing under the same name but I checked the publications and it seems Scopus has properly distinguished them). Based on his citation record, I conclude that he doesnt pass #1. With regards to NPROF#6 there is no evidence he held a post beyond Dean which does not fulfill #6. With regards to the document that Vanderwaalforces presented, I translated it and it seems to be the appointment to the post of "professor", this is however *not* what NPROF#2 is intended - these are major awards from academic societies or general awards like Fields Medals, Nobel prizes etc. One could argue that this may fulfill NPROF#5 since this is an appointment that (probably) not all professors get and is thus equivalent to a distinguished professorship at a US university and he thus he passes the "average professor test" since he is elevated beyond the "average professor". To me that is the strongest argument of all the ones I evaluated. However, I dont know enough about the academic structure in the country but I dont see enough evidence that this is indeed such an unusual occurrence to grant notability *on its own* in the presence of a weak citation record. In totality, both the content of the article and the additional arguments presented here have not convinced me that this a person that passes WP:NPROF. --hroest 17:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannes Röst criterion #2 didn't just mention awards, it says "award or honor", and FWIW, it clearly, by all means, and by all interpretation, passes #2. This is a country's highest and significant academic achievement we're talking about here, and the source that backs it up is a government ministry's site. What more do we need? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces There is some clarification in the section below that specifies "Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts" which I interpret as different from an official promotion. A named award or fellowship that is open to any researcher on a national level is different than what you describe which is more like a "distinguished promotion" within the ranks of academia that only some achieve. As I said, promotion to full professor more likely falls under NPROF#5 with "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution [...] or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. " which could be a fair argument to make but I dont see enough evidence for this (neither the "major institution" nor that this is equivalent to a distinguished professor at say Stanford/MIT/Yale ...). --hroest 13:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Comment. His article will remain on pl wiki, which considers habilitation sufficent for notability. I know en wiki does not. Interesting discrepancy, but that's wiki for you. I cannot find any other reasons to argue for keeping him, under en wiki rules (the claim that his book is an "important contributions" is cited to a routine government document justifying his promotion to the rank of professor and is in fact FAKE, since that document does not provide any justification - that falsificaiton of content made me withdraw my keep vote, since it is dishonest), although he does have the next "higher" level of academic degree (above) habilitaiton, i.e. the professor (as noted by Vanderwaalforces). Frankly, I'd support traeting that level as granting notability, but that's seems to be a dissenting view. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus is it fake? Ah. Please point me or rather direct me to where you made the conclusion from? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces "are important contributions" is footnoted to [1]; that's just gov't document stating he (and some other folks) got the title of professor, but it contains no justification. That's sloppy writing at best, and in practice, improper use of sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus I'm sorry to be asking too much questions, lol, but I need to be clearer; What do you mean by it contains no justification though?

FWIW, I think that if the highest academic "honor" (and not "award" in this case) is the President granting them the title of Professor, then that clearly satisfies criterion #2 from my viewpoint. I just feel most times, we're not consistent with our interpretation of notability guidelines and this might be increasing the systemic bias some of us are trying to reduce. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces No need to be sorry. What I mean is that it's a simple document (which you can open and translate with your phone or Google Translate or ChatGPT or such), and it simply states that such and such person received the professor title. It does not say what for, so the use of this document as a reference for the claim that he made "important contributions", is, IMHO, improper. Now, we can use common sense and deduce that only scholars with important contributions would receive such a title, but that's is meaningless WP:PEACOCK. For me, it's one thing to say that "according to reliable source X, his contributions have been called important", and another to use flowery, promotional languages. Since I am quite annoyed at the latter, I did change my weak keep to abstain, in hope that it will teach the creator to be more neutral (if they apologized and rewrote it, I may reconsider, but it does not seem that they are active enough, or care enough about this article, to comment here, so, sigh). As for your interpretation of #2, I weakly agree with you, hence my weak keep. I hope I explained why I changed to abstain (I really dislike promotion and poor/fake sourcing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia School Leaders Institute

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

Only covered in primary sources, could not find any sufficient coverage in secondary sources.

Deletion may be controversial since the article is linked on Template:Virginia Tech. Not sure where or if this should be redirected/merged ApexParagon (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

São Paulo Essay Olympiad

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

seems to be entirely non-notable Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 04:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Brazil. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 04:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The sources are all primary, from the São Paulo state education department. This type of event occurs routinely, without any prominence or impact. Svartner (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as run of the mill: almost every state has some sort of essay competition. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Sciences Course

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

Page on a single undergraduate class, translated from the pt-wiki. There is nothing notable about this class, the page is just an extended description without any coverage from what I can see. This is not what (the english) Wikipedia is for, class information can go on Facebook, LinkedIn or similar. The page should probably have been draftified, but missed the 90 day window. Deletion seems appropriate, as I do not see how this can possibly be edited to pass any of the english WP notability criteria. (Possible COI as well, but that is not the deciding factor.) Ldm1954 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Biology, Science and Brazil. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to meet WP:GNG. It's possible that a single college or university could be independently notable. But I expect that is quite rare and in any case the claim needs to be supported by reliable, independent sources just like every other article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reason given. There are, of course, many articles on single colleges and universities, so I think ElKevbo accidentally omitted the word "course" after "single college or university". Athel cb (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is a typo on my part. Thank you for the polite correction! ElKevbo (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I studied in USP and I heard of this "elite" course. Maybe the article as it is currently doesn't adequately capture why this course is special, notable, but ... as far as I know the sources in the current article already attest to some notability. Not sure about how special courses/majors are treated in wikipedia as a whole though 🙏🏽 (hello from Wikiproject Brazil!) User:D Kirlston - talk 19:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LNCT University

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

There is nothing here. No sources to establish notability. I also did a google search for the subject, and there are barely any sources that are independent and not mere trivial mentions. Would suggest deletion Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Since for-profit educational organizations are regarded as commercial entities, they must adhere to WP:GNG & WP:NCORP criterias. Also see, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Charlie (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I dont see anything in-depth as required for WP:NORG (private University). --hroest

Ubuntu Professional Certification

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

I could not find any secondary sources that are not user-generated about this certification system. This certification is not even mentioned on Ubuntu or Canonical's page. Online searches yield no results from ProQuest or Google, and there does not seem like there is a quality redirect target. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. The forum source doesn't count towards notability. I can't access the other one due to the Wayback Machine being blocked on my work internet, but given that it's from Canonical themselves, it's irrelevant anyway for notability purposes. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 02:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the other source now that I'm home, and yeah it's just a press release. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have considered a redirect to Linux Professional Institute. However, I don't think "Ubuntu Professional Certification" was the official name ever. The author of the Wikipedia article probably took it from Canonical's announcement headline. The course was, as specified in the official announcement and other materials, Ubuntu Certified Professional. MarioGom (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jhalakathi Government High School

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

School does not appear to be notable upon search. The current sources in the article only prove that the school exists, and upon search, I can't seem to find any sources that would prove the subject is notable enough to warrant its own article. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Krishna College of Engineering

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

There is nothing to salvage here. It uses only primary sources. Whatever sources are available online are mere trivial mention. So this cannot be merged as well. I would suggest a deletion or a redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to LNCT University - seems the institution is actually LNCT (Bhopal) Indore Campus per [2], as the address matches there, and primary links on LKCE article are actually with LNCT. No apparent indication that this is (directly) connected to Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow Dl2000 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LNCT does not seem notable either. I have nominated it for an AfD as well Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete there doesnt seem to be SIGCOV. --hroest 19:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Redirect target articles are suggested, one of which is also at AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies

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

Article is about a private academic/educational organization. There are only 3 sources: and all 3 are from the organization's own website.

Hence, no independent sources, therefore fails the WP:V and WP:Notability requirements.

Log says that an article of the same name was deleted in the past, but I cannot find that older AfD. Noleander (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-known independent institution in Hong Kong. Multiple local news agencies have reported findings of such institute which they are well cited.

https://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/article/20250328/s00002/1743099198748/%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%A7%E4%BA%9E%E5%A4%AA%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80%E6%B0%91%E8%AA%BF-63-%E6%8C%87%E7%8F%BE%E9%9D%9E%E8%B2%B7%E6%A8%93%E6%99%82%E6%A9%9F-42-%E6%96%99%E4%BE%86%E5%B9%B4%E8%B7%8C%E5%83%B9

https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20241111/mobile/bkn-20241111134821159-1111_00822_001.html

https://www.inmediahk.net/node/%E6%94%BF%E7%B6%93/%E3%80%90%E8%B2%A1%E6%94%BF%E9%A0%90%E7%AE%97%E6%A1%88%E3%80%91%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%A7%E6%B0%91%E8%AA%BF%EF%BC%9A%E4%BA%94%E6%88%90%E5%8D%8A%E5%B8%82%E6%B0%91%E6%84%9F%E4%B8%8D%E6%BB%BF-%E6%BB%BF%E6%84%8F%E5%83%858%EF%BC%85

Articles from secondary sources on this institute include

https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%9A%E5%A4%AA%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80/7260339

https://onthinktanks.org/think-tank/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%9E%E5%A4%AA%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80/

Please let me know if you are unsatisfied with what I have provided and would like more or something else, thank you. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first three sources cite the organization's work without anything about the organization itself. The Baidu Baike entry is another online encyclopedia, and onthinktanks.org is a directory listing with content likely provided by the organization. Oblivy (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Hi there I’m not sure if you would have the time of doing so but could you please take a look and see if you could try finding related sources to this article, since you have similarly done so in the past. Thank you very much. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This institute has been cited hundreds of times on Jstor. [3] Their polls are regularly covered in the news, e.g. SCMP: [4][5][6], NYT: [7][8][9][10]. They are also called variations like "the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at Chinese University" or "Hong Kong Institute of Asia Pacific Studies" (no hyphen) or the abbreviated "HKIAPS". I haven't found sigcov yet but I am not sure if meeting the GNG is required here; similar to our standards for academics and newspapers, I think the bar should be lower here. Toadspike [Talk] 07:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the previous deletion was a speedy under WP:A7 from 15 years ago. [11] There was no AfD and that speedy deletion, being a content issue and not a notability issue, should have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 13:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rangamati Government High School

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

Upon search, I don't think that the school is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. As far as my search, I don't see any reliable, secondary coverage, and the current state of the article also primarily cites their own website. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Usually Bangladeshi education institutions in the Chittagong Hill Tracts does not have secondary coverage. Education institute outside Dhaka are usually area-wise popular. Like this one is a well-known in Rangamati. Additionally, this is the first & oldest school in CHT. Notable alumnis also studied here. WinKyaw (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The school doesn't have secondary, reliable coverage though, as you said in your reply. As @Hannes Röst said, just because a school exists, it does not automatically confer any notability onto the school. The school needs to be notable enough to warrant its own article, and the school clearly does not pass WP:NSCHOOL at this very moment. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems to be one of the 64 government high schools located in the 64 districts of Bangladesh. The locals reckon that these schools are quite the talk of the region within their respective districts. Somajyoti ✉ 16:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is no indication of passing WP:NSCHOOL, there are no secondary sources that I could find in books that go beyond trivial coverage. There are some sources on a formar headmaster but mentions the school in one line. The arguments of User talk:Somajyoti and User:Win Kyaw boil down to WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST which is not sufficient. Similarly the fact that notable alumni have studied here does not make the school notable by itself. @User talk:Somajyoti and @User:Win Kyaw, please see this RFC which was discussed in great length and concludes that High schools are not inherently noteable and that reliable independent WP:SIGCOV needs to exist for them as well, which I dont see here. There simply isnt any coverage that we could use to write an article. --hroest 20:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:SIGCOV, and has no relevance in the broad encyclopedic perspective, not passes WP:NSCHOOL. Simply, if a school is known in local area (most probably by students and their guardians), it is not encyclopedic. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merian Centre for Advanced Studies in the Maghreb

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

Bilateral research centre sourced to the websites of related organisations, lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Tunisia, and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did this come from draft space? If so, send it back for more work. If not, send it there for more work. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s past the 90 day deadline for sending to draft without coming to AfD first.Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But can be sent back to draft by consensus here. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though if nobody can find decent third party sourcing there’s no point in draftifying it. Mccapra (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tunis University#Organisation. I just added it there. No independent reliable sources can be found, but none of the other organizations at Tunis University are well sourced either. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d support a redirect there thanks. Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to Learn

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

I apologise in advance to participants, as this is going to be a tricky one to research, as "ready to learn" is going to find many unrelated pages. The page subject, however, is a zero-tolerance behaviour policy for schools including a one page template document describing it. It was invented at Henbury school, Bristol (now Blaise High School) which page does not mention it. It was used by a few other schools, but not researched or written about in secondary sources, with the one exception of a BBC 2 documentary [12] which is a good source, although the programme was generally about schools (part of a series) and this just happened to be used in one of them. It raised some local controversy in schools that used the system, so there are a couple of news reports, but the reporting would fall foul of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The article itself is full of WP:OR, but the question is not whether the article will do, but rather whether these (or other sources I have been unable to find) would give us multiple secondary sources from which we could write an encyclopaedic article about the system. Many schools have such systems, and personally I doubt there is anything notable about this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the topic seems like it has a decent shot at notability. This looks like another potential source. As do this and this from another publication. And here's one more. -- Avocado (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think this is borderline notable as it seems like a behavioral policy standard. It has a few documentaries on it and some news coverage as controversial. Cannot think of a redirect as an alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability demonstrated by sources posted above by Avocado. ~Kvng (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep there are multiple independent news articles covering the policy (found by Avocado) as well as the BBC programme. While the article itself is not in good shape, I think there is enough there to demonstrate notability. --hroest 16:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hokkaido Kaminokuni High School

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

No apparent notability JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Upon search, the school does not seem to have reliable, secondary coverage. There is no real reason to presume the school is notable per WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Was PROD'd by @Alphabetagamma in August '24 but contested. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSCHOOL, seems to be a WP:ROTM high school without any notability. --hroest 20:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

or redirect to Kaminokuni,_Hokkaido#Education. --hroest 20:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kaminokuni,_Hokkaido#Education. There is not much to work with in this article. Not every high school needs its own page. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Barbara Micarelli School

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG due to the absence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, lack of citations, and directory-only content. Scoria (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Scoria (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely any notability whatsoever. All the sources are either primary sources or logs of schools. It seems like the article creator is related to the school, which makes the article less notable. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 09:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is totally unnecessary Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santo Tomas, Batangas#Private schools: Completely unsourced. A quick internet search doesn't show any independent and reliable sources that would help establish the notability of this school. Redirect per WP:ATD-R. AstrooKai (Talk) 10:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santo Tomas, Batangas#Private schools per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santo Tomas, Batangas#Private schools, not enough there for an independent article. --hroest 19:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Charlie (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for redirect as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santo Tomas, Batangas#Private schools per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. -Ian Lopez @ 15:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bule Hora University

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

Refs are all database sites. BEFORE turned up one short news article on protests at the university. Article would be a stub if not for filler like "teaches normal subjects", "has a campus", "has an online portal", "is top 30 in Ethiopia" (ranked #27/35?) REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ethiopia. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable enough Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Servite et contribuere, this is not a compelling argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep notable as a public university, with a substantial (20k) student body. However there is weak coverage in WP:RS. --hroest 01:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bule_Hora_(town)#Bule_Hora_University. I agree that RS is lacking. It may be a notable institution, but may be better in redirect for the time being. If it gorws in RS then a stand alone article can be recreated. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ramos1990. Most of the sources in Google News are open research publishing websites (with one BBC article in another language) Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ramos1990, even if it technically passes notability guidelines, I think it'd be better off as part of the town article until more reliable secondary sources are found

(Note: I also had to remove a lot of content from the university section on the town article due to much of it being irrelevant or unverifiable. It's better now.) ApexParagon (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Ramos1990 and WP:Cheap Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Guild of Music & Speech

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

Exam fails WP:GNG. Sources are nothing but primary sources. GTrang (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Education, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTrang,

thanks for flagging this. Have briefly revised the page with some further secondary sources to demonstrate some notability. Very best, Saltysuperbananafruit (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My source-quality scanner picks up "possibly AI-generated slop", flagging all references except 1, 4, 6. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relevant if ChatGPT is merely used assess the quality of secondary sources? The article has a clear chain in its edit history and is obviously not AI-produced. Saltysuperbananafruit (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in google news or books. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that until 2024, this organisation was named the Australian Guild of Music Education, so most sources will be under that name. I am currently looking for sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia

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

Non-notable academic society. Lacks RSs and seems unlikely any would exist. Cabrils (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Social science, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no indication of notability and can't find a suitable target for a merge/redirect. I considered whether the article could be rescoped to be about the Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia, but that doesn't seem to be notable either. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Park Academy

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

ROTM article without any WP:RS and nothing turned up on WP:BEFORE except routine coverage of their football team hroest 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. hroest 15:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think there is some history that could make the article more interesting, and perhaps some content can be found that would justify an assertion of notability. This [archive-url https://web.archive.org/web/20110710030837/http://chandlerparkacademy.net/about-us/history.html] has some clues.--Kerbyki (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here is an extremely short, promotional blurb from the schools website, unfortunately I did not see any WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources that cover the history of the school as required per WP:NSCHOOL. --hroest 14:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I added a source from the The Michigan Chronicle that was not all that hard to find. I just inserted a sentence and added the source. But this school looks very notable, and it shouldn't take much effort to expand this article, complete with sources. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is a single article that is a puff piece for a corporate donation to the school and contains hardly any information about the school itself, the best information you could extract from that article is that the donation happened, nothing more. I still dont see WP:THREE reliable independent sources with WP:SIGCOV. --hroest 19:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, better with the work that alice did. people wanting more info on this place, although small can. many times these you can put a lot into them, however there's a lot of them and its quite nice to have a collection of info on a place. there generaly not many infos on academy's. school that are used by hundred's or thousands I think are automatically notable even with less research JamesEMonroe (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

high schools are not automatically notable, see WP:NSCHOOL and here. --hroest 19:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fought hard for the past standard that all high schools were presumed notable, but I have since gone along with the consensus. Generally speaking, there needs to be three full stories in mainstream media for a school to be notable. These could be about their academic successes, notable alumni, winning a debate or glee club championship, or even scandals and crimes (the converage can be good, bad, or ugly). That places schools that haven't been open a long time at a distinct disadvantage. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to to Harper_Woods,_Michigan#Education. This does not look notable. I don't see this as enough for a stand alone article. Its main claim to notability is one alimni who played pro basketball, but the actual acadmy itself if not notable on its own. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If discussion considers notability of the subject itself and not the subject's type, is it notable enough? A final relist for a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Harper_Woods,_Michigan#Education not sufficiently notable for an article but it is good prose that some readers will find useful on the subject Czarking0 (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Fermi High School

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

Only routine local coverage, nothing that satisfies WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete. Not sure here. On one hand the Hartford Courant, the biggest newspaper in a fairly populous state, appears to have a routine "in the schools" section that regularly covered Enrico Fermi. But, almost all of the coverage is routine in nature (e.g., school dances, sports, announcements, etc.), or human interest stories that do not necessarily contribute to notability. nf utvol (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge into Enfield High School nothing against local newspapers, this article seems well researched with lots of references to offline newspaper archive which I presume is WP:SIGCOV of the local school (I dont have access to these offline sources). The article is well sourced with a lot of informative details that would be hard to research online and offline. I dont see any reason to remove this work, it should be preserved either in this article or in the Enfield High School article. AfD for high schools is designed for poorly researched, WP:ROTM articles that have no encyclopedic quality and cannot be supported by WP:RS, this article is not that at all. This was discussed here with exactly this problem in mind:

Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search.

However, in this case the article author has done exactly that, a deep search with local media and produced a reasonable quality article based on coverage in WP:RS. --hroest 14:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selale University

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

Undisclosed paid editing/conflict of interest fails WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public university, not a paid promotion. Which parts raised concerns about undisclosed paid editing or conflict of interest? But I can go ahead and blank it out, if it makes you happy. Wieditor25 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a public university, and paid promotion, are not mutually exclusive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False accuse- Not paid! Wieditor25 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A government source, the university's own website (which throws up a secure connexion failed error) and some routine coverage. Nothing here is any good. Wieditor25 has attemped to canvass this discussion on the Teahouse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep public Universities are generally presumed notable, even though here there isnt a ton of secondary coverage we can at least establish that this University exists and trains students. The article is in reasonable shape and has sources, we can improve COI issues but I simply dont see a reason to delete this. --hroest 14:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Public universities are usually found (but not presumed) notable, because they are large, often old organisations with publication output and a public profile. They need to meet WP:GNG. This one doesn't, but it is not wholly invisible. There are news reports like this one [13] which won't do for writing the article. It gets passing mentions in a few books etc. May just be TOOSOON becaue it is very new and is also very small for a university. Can we find a redirect target as an ATD? I was going to !vote as a weak delete, but I'd rather find a merge or redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Founded nine years ago, it's not surprising that there's not a lot of coverage. Since this university only has undergraduate degrees, it's what would probably be called an agricultural and technical college in the United States. They were, before the Covid-19 pandemic, planning on adding graduate degrees, but there's no evidence that it's happening. They have had, as far as I can see online, a single research paper published. There are a few news items on Google news. So I'm leaning towards a keep. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

No articles proposed for deletion at this time