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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tangail#Education. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Police Lines Adarsha High School, Tangail

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

Re-created following a speedy so bringing here for discussion. I cannot find sufficient sourcing to establish notability for this school. Assuming the non English sourcing verifies the facts, it's not establishing notability either Star Mississippi 01:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Star Mississippi 01:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the education section of the city where it is located, Tangail#Education. It is already listed there among the city's other secondary schools. The article is promotional and based almost entirely on press releases. Searches in English and Bengali found no sources that would justify a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tangail#Education per Worldbruce. It might gain enough notability in the near future. ZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 04:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4T – Vietnam Youth Education Support Center

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

Upon searching up the subject, I do not see any reliable sources that can be added to the current article. Also, the current article only references primary sources. WormEater13 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Vietnam. WormEater13 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. While numerically there's slightly greater weight for delete, the single keep contribution is far more detailed than the nomination and the interventions waving at ADMASQ and per nominator. As such, there's effectively two detailed but opposite views regarding notability, neither of which fully refutes the other. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sourcing in this article is like a flea market: cluttered, uneven, but with real value among the items. Roughly two-thirds of the 33 references are clearly low-quality, promotional, or dead links and should be trimmed per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. However, 6 to 7 are solid pieces from reliable national sources including The Times of India, The Economic Times, DNA India, Forbes India, and India Today, offering independent coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. This is a clear keep and a strong cleanup candidate under WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've performed a WP:HEY cleanup: removed all promotional and unverified claims, trimmed weak sources, and ensured the article is now built on a solid core of high-quality, independent sources, with minor supporting references for individual events. HerBauhaus (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete change !vote since redirect target no longer exists Merge to Rishabh Sanjay Shah as per WP:ATD and redirect. First, fair play to HerBauhaus for the extensive cleanup, the article is much better now. But unfortunately, I cannot locate any reference that provides in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *organization*. Most of the references have a couple of sentences describing the organisation at most, all saying much the same thing, that the organization is involved in organising conferences or has been involved in marches or other movements. A lot of the articles are dedicated to a participant in a conference (might go to notability of the participant?) or one of the conferences (might go to notability of a particular event?) or to the founder (might go to notability of the founder?). We even have stuff about the find-a-bed program (might go to notability of the find-a-bed movement?). But if the topic is the organization, then NCORP criteria says we require references that establish the notability of the organization. I suggest the material here, which overlaps extensively with the existing material in the target, can easily be merged. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a bit unsure about the merge suggestion. The article appears to meet WP:GNG, with broad, independent coverage from sources like The Economic Times, Forbes India, and India Today. Even when the founder or events are mentioned, isn’t the organization itself the recurring subject? Wouldn’t that satisfy notability under GNG, regardless of WP:NCORP? And since the content focuses on the organization's activities rather than a personal biography, wouldn’t merging to the founder risk WP:COATRACK concerns? HerBauhaus (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your question contains a flawed premise which, when pointed out, will reveal the answer. There isn't a "regardless of WP:NCORP" because GNG and NCORP are essentially the same thing. NCORP shows how the general notability guidelines (GNG) *must* be applied for companies/organisations. Or put another way - an article about a company can't meet GNG and not meet NCORP and if you think the article does, it must be only because you're applying the guidelines incorrectly for this topic area and you must be ignoring the NCORP guidelines (which are instructions on *how* the general GNG guidelines are to apply). HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merging this page with Rishabh Sanjay Shah would be pointless, as he was previously involved in hijacking other pages, leading to their eventual deletion through the AFD process. For more details, visit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rishabh_Shah. Charlie (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Significant independent coverage from major Indian reliable sources, including The Economic Times, Forbes India, DNA India, and India Today, establishes clear notability under both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Cleanup has fully addressed prior issues of sourcing and tone. Wikipedia’s notability guidelines require significant coverage, not exhaustive or exclusively in-depth coverage. Topics from non-Western contexts must be evaluated under the same standard as all others. This article meets policy and should be retained. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are WP:ADMASQ/WP:RSNOI. Charlie (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge‎ to Kaplan, Inc.. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan Law School

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

Article about a defunct for-profit UK legal training centre lacking reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Primarily a puff piece designed to promote the (now non-existent) organization. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as a section of Nottingham Law School, for which it provided some services, and with which its degrees were affiliated. BD2412 T 18:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BD2412. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BD2412 makes the most sense and the content does not pass to be SPLIT into this separate article. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator, I have no objection to the community's leaning toward merge if the ultimate decision is not to delete. This specific article has so few (1! - and that has one sentence in total) sources that any merge probably needs to refer to the parent, Kaplan, Inc., or to be merged into that article rather than any other, as the Kaplan Inc. article at least has a few references to a relationship with Nottingham Trent University and to Kaplan having been selected in 2018 as being authorized to deliver the SQE (Solicitors Qualifying Exam). Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further responses in light of Geoff's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per BD2412. My first thought was to redirect to Kaplan, Inc. which I think is an alternative option, but BD2412's probably makes more sense. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge to Kaplan, Inc. just to clarify. This should be closed out now in that direction. Total consensus for it. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be closed by now. Far too many of these AfD's end up open longer than need be, even when consensus is clear as the sky is blue. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Group of Institutions

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NORG. The only source currently in the article is the organizations website, while a cursory search didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and India. Let'srun (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NORG. A search brought up a mixture of primary sources on related organizations and companies associated with the founder. All of them suffer notability issues, including the embedded list in the "Educational institutes" section, created by a now-blocked user. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised this survived past AfDs, but in any case it fails SIGCOV, and at least WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I didn't note it in my nomination statement, the only reason this 'survived' AfD previously had to do with User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs and not with the actual sourcing. Let'srun (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is insufficient, and not a great source at that. This is a Delete !vote for sure. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UCPH Department of Chemistry

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

Fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Denmark. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep just because this is such an old department and has the start of what looks to be a verifiable history - I just can't find it because I don't know any Danish and have to rely on Google Translate to find anything useful. If no one else can find information about it (the other departments also pretty heavily rely on primary sources, though they are in general better sourced) then it would probably be best to merge to University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science. Recon rabbit 15:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky, but there are indications that there's enough in histories of Hans Christian Ørsted and in the quincentennial history of the University published in 1978 (and apparently held in the Rigsarkivet) to cover the history of the Chemistry institute specifically. It will need to be carefully teased apart from the history of chemistry at the Technical University of Denmark, which also involved Ørsted and some of which is apparently shared. Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. We no longer have any editors arguing for deletion. Though the article is in need of improvement, that is not an issue for AfD. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 11:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Islamic Studies

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

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 11#University of Islamic Studies. There was no support for this page as a redirect. An opinion from the RfD was that it is likely there are sources which aren't in English so it needs a full evaluation as an article. Jay 💬 12:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Islam, and Pakistan. Jay 💬 12:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can be better sourced but decent. I will say that the article has been around since 2007. Ramos1990 (talk)

Which tells us that better sourcing is not forthcoming most likely. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, Weak Keep I could change my !vote if it is found that non-English sources bring this around to be deemed notable. Please ping me before closing if that is the case. Otherwise, in the English search I ran this only has itself to cite, and that is not sufficient for notability. Though the name of the University makes it sound more prominent than sources seem to indicate. (as I said I would, I updated my !vote to a Weak Keep after changes were made and further sourcing updates were found for the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, although I'd move to redirect if there were a good target. The University of Islamic Studies is a private institution in Karachi. Work began on it in 1987, and it seems to have opened in 1990. It ran as an unregistered instittion for its first 14 years but sought suitable registration when threatened with closure in 2004. There seems to be very little in the way of secondary sources about the University itself, but it does keep popping up in sources that are looking at Islamic radicalisation and extremism. I have added a few of these to the page in a bibliography, but not sought to use them to write any prose yet. There are also a fair few publications from the university, and also multiple sources about an alumnus who is a gay imam. The problem is that this is a private educational establishment, and thus it needs to meet WP:NORG. What we don't have is significant coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH about the university. Primary sources won't do either. So really I should be !voting delete here. But the coverage about the extremism does make me feel there could be more here than found to date. I think my preference would be to redirect to an appropriate oage that treats this in the context that the sources are covering. The problem is I don't know where that would be. So I will lean weakly for a keep pending discovery of or creation of such an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Sourcing will need improvement though. Lorstaking (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Ramon Horta AG7

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

I've searched for sources, and found none, except one that says who Antonio Ramon Horta was (whose publisher I'm uncertain about, and which does not mention the school itself). I've no objection if someone wants to WP:MERGE this to Forest siege instead, but at present, I can find no sources that mention the name of this short-lived school. As a closed school, I don't think it meets the WP:List selection criteria for List of medical schools in the Caribbean, and adding it to List of colleges and universities in Cuba would be best if we had a solid source to add with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Cuba. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources do not mention this medical school, and I was unable to find any sources either. Unicorbia (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial College Halls of Residence

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

Little on the page to suggest that this topic has independent notability outside of Imperial College London. Suggest at best it could be merged because of WP:NOTEVERYTHING but also suspect that detailed guff about student accommodation is unlikely to be notable even there. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At least two of the current halls of residence and one former hall discussed in the article are notable as listed buildings per WP:GEOFEAT:

"Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable."

There is also evidence of notability for other halls, with significant coverage in the Evening Standard and ITV News, as well as in the trade magazine The Construction Index. That much of the page is sourced back to Imperial does not affect notability. Robminchin (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as listed buildings per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for a separate article about student accommodation. Beside that, it looks rather promotional due to the fact that most of the sources are related to the subject. The Banner talk 17:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked at this before and felt it needed some thought. Sadly my thoughts are lacking. So he issue is that the only real claim to notability is for those halls that are listed buildings. But they are notable for the building and not the function. If the university divested itself of these buildings, they would remain notable as listed buildings. So there is a case for splitting out those buildings into their own article, but the rest should be merged back into the university. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions

No articles proposed for deletion at this time