Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Shortcut

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

Forum of Irish Postgraduate Medical Training Bodies

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

Non-notable organisation. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. While, as expected by WP:NGO, the "scope of their activities is national [..] in scale", there is no indication that the org "has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization". Searches in national news outlets return only passing mentions. For example, a search in The Irish Times returns only passing mentions and "letters to the editor" by people associated with the org. A search on national broadcaster RTÉ 's website returns a single passing mention. A similar search across the entire Irish Independent stable of national/regional/local papers also only returns a single passing mention. Same goes for the Irish Examiner (4 passing mentions), and The Journal (2 passing mentions). Even a broad Google search returns barely 80 results (including the org's own website, socials, the above passing mentions in news articles, and random mentions in Facebook/LinkedIn posts and press releases). Not only is none of this useful in establishing notability, it is even insufficient to allow for expansion of this title beyond the bare sub-stub it has been for years. (Other than its own website, how would we source information on formation, dates, activities, etc?) In terms of WP:ATDs, given that the org isn't even mentioned once elsewhere on the project, I cannot conceive of an appropriate redirection (such that the org could be covered WP:WITHIN another title.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social impact publishing

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

Article matter does not meet WP:GNG, term isn't used in any significance. Article itself is almost fully WP:OR due to the lack of notability for its subject matter; contested PROD. Coeusin (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment The tone is heavily promotional and has a whiff of AI generation. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Education. Coeusin (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. I checked a number of the sources and they're all "near-miss" citation; they sort-of-look like they might be relevant to the sentence to which they're attached, but when you look in detail, they don't actually contain the information that's in the sentence. They don't support it, but they sort-of conceptually feel like they probably might have. The problem is quite subtle. For example, we have the statement "It is common to hear about a "reading crisis". In most case, the pat response is often to instill a "reading culture"." which is supported by ref 13 [1]. The reference discusses the culture of reading in South Africa, and it does indeed talk about a reading culture, but at no point does it say that instilling a reading culture is a pat response to a reading crisis. You could treat this reference as an example of someone talking about a reading crisis and responding that it's important to instill a reading culture, but that would turn the WP article into an essay of original research. Basically, the reference is sort-of in the right area for reading culture, but it's not actually doing the job it's supposed to do. That's just one of the references I checked. We really can't have this genre of sounds-convincing-but-actually-synthesised-from-AI-or-personal-opinion article in WP. Elemimele (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 textbooks criticism

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

Insignificant and irrelevant unless proven otherwise, this kind of events can happen, it happens every year, textbooks can be criticised, that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article also has issues with its quality and literally every year and even day, textbooks are criticised, this type of events are not suitable to stay in Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has failed to make a case why the sourcing situation is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You have failed to understand that the article is not relevant. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student abuse at Islamic University, Kushtia

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

Literally most educational institutions have a similar case with abuse of students or teachers or staff, that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article unless proven. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep There is not valid deletion rationale given. Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage are used in the article. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a reason to delete this article.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator has failed to make a case why the sourcing situation (with the article having 33 sources) is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1. The rationale does not feel like a deletion rationale and clealy nom does not even a single WP:BEFORE search. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? oh well you can't really prove that i didn't search or not or chose a different approach, you can have that opinion Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, It appears that the nominator is attempting to take revenge related to User:Somajyoti, who had previously nominated some AfDs concerning BangladeshiEditorInSylhet. This behavior can be seen as disruptive editing. Notably, the current article is both notable and well-sourced.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First of all, I'm not trying to take revenge, he nominated some of my articles for deletion days ago, and i already gave a correct answer and reply to his statements, a piece of revenge is unnecessary, but I mean i know why you would think this, no problem and the so called response that "WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a reason to delete this article" should be explained properly and I'll be convinced and withdraw my support for deleting this article. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korczak's orphanages

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

This is a messy stub that hijacks its interwiki. Korczak ran two notable orphanages (Nasz Dom, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11789892, and Dom Sierot, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6431490). The article nominated here (Korczak's orhpanages) is incorrectly linked to Q6431490 (all other wikis in it are about Dom Sierot specifically); it also doesn't make obvious the concept of "Korczak's orhpanages", combined, has stand-alone notability (I see some passing mentions in my BEFORE, but no clear SIGCOV). The current article has just one (non-English) reference and is a stub; I suggest deleting it as it also seems to contain many errors. For example, it gives dates for its two orphanages, unnamed, as 1911-1942 and 1918-1940. The dedicated Wiki articles have different dates (1912-1944) and 1919-1946, reactivated in 1991). If our underreferneced stub cannot even get basic facts straight (such as names and dates), dubious notatability aside, WP:TNT is needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Community College

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

No refs on the page since 2013. Nothing much to suggest that this sub-degree level private education provider would meet the notability standards for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. JMWt (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After taking some time to look for sources that could be used to satisfy notability, I found nothing of substance. There seems to be a couple of CBC articles referencing WP:ILLCON and not much else. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Boulevard Public School

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

Redirect to Peel District School Board. Elementary school with no indication of notability. Sources are all local routine coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peel District School Board All routine outside the mention about school attendance, which is in no way a defining characteristic for a K-5 school article. Nathannah • 📮 21:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Bosniak Gymnasium

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

AI written article about a secondary school with no indication of notability. A possible ATD is merge to Petrakijina Street. JTtheOG (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. JTtheOG (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Bat Cave

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

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search - there are articles such as the Austin Chronicle, but they are not WP:SIGCOV so there's no reason to presume that the subject is notable. The current state of the article also only has one reference, which is their own website. Also slight WP:NPOV issues. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, I have begun to add references to the article and fix the language. I am still finding more refs, but it is already a very different article than what it was before. StonyBrook _babble 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This literacy organization meets GNG and NCORP by way of the following newspaper articles that are available via the Newspaper Archive & Newspapers.com (requires access): Daily Texan (9 Nov 2015) Nonprofit Austin Bat Cave teaches, publishes children's creative writing which is a front page newspaper feature article (two pages long, with photo); Brownsville Herald a half-page article (29 July 2019) with four photographs Expressive Project: Teaching writing is as important as reading; Lockhart Post Register (8 September 2022) Evening with the Authors a paragraph on the founder of Austin Bat Cave; The Paducah Sun (18 July 2019) Is teaching writing as important as teaching reading? feature article with three photos of Austin Bat Cave, later picked up by the The Saginaw News 23 August 2019) and circulated nationally; Austin American-Statesman (12 Jan 2017) Out - several paragraphs and a photo of the founder; Austin American-Statesman (16 April 2011) Tutors with Austin Bat Cave help students get their wings - feature article with photo on the front page of the "Life & Arts" section, continued on a second page as a half-page article with three more photos; and more. These sources (and others) clearly provide the required secondary Significant Coverage in multiple reliable sources that are fully independent of the organization over an extended period of time - for years. The coverage addresses the subject in-depth and directly. I agree with StonyBrook that the article may need cleaning up and improvements, however that is not a valid rationale for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cabell Midland High School

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

Public high school that does not appear to have received any WP:SIGCOV outside of routine coverage of sports or school events in local media. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. nf utvol (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. nf utvol (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination seems likely to fail WP:BEFORE, in that it does not mention a search for sources that would satisfy the general notability guideline, and those sources are fairly certain to exist. In particular, Cabell Midland is likely to have extensive coverage in regional news sources, including The Herald-Dispatch and Charleston Gazette-Mail, and on WSAZ-TV and its website. These would not be considered "local media" in the sense used by WP:AUD ("the weekly newspaper for a small town"), but rather media with a "regional" audience ("the biggest daily newspaper in any US State"), which would be "strong evidence of notability".

Some of this coverage will of course be routine coverage of sports or other events, but I'm quite certain the school has received other coverage over the years. It may not all be online—that's definitely an issue with these specific sources—but several years' worth of it is available online in the case of the newspapers, though you may need a subscription to access it. And since Cabell Midland is one of only two high schools in the county, it gets a fair amount of attention. This strikes me as a case where the article's authors have simply relied on the material they could most easily find and cite, rather than searching for the most reliable, independent sources possible. But since I have no doubt that better sources do in fact exist for this article, and where they can be found (though obtaining them may require a fair amount of work), I can't support this nomination. P Aculeius (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a thorough WP:BEFORE here, including searches using the WP:LIBRARY access to Newspapers.com and Newspaper Archive when I didn't find anything notable in Google search, books, or news. Newspapers.com didn't return any hits at all for this school, and Newspaper Archive was entirely limited to routine coverage of events like track meets and football scores. Do you have any specific coverage in mind that you're able to provide a citation for? nf utvol (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the daily newspapers for the two largest cities in the state. Your search failed to account for the fact that neither of them is available through Newspapers.com or Newspaper Archive, at least since Cabell Midland High School opened. You're going to have to reckon with the fact that not all important sources are accessible online, and that much of West Virginia, Appalachia, and the Ohio Valley are a black hole when it comes to online resources. And not many editors are going to have the time and energy to track down all of these hard-to-obtain sources in order to rescue a series of articles about presumably notable things merely because someone who isn't willing to search for them where they can be found keeps nominating them for deletion.

Since I have a subscription to the Herald-Dispatch, I'll see what I can find in the available news archive—though it's not that easy to search, and doesn't go back that far. But I'm not going to be able to do this every time something that'd be covered in regional news or other sources that aren't online gets nominated for deletion based on the fact that those resources aren't accessible over the internet. P Aculeius (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald-Dispatch and Gazette-Mail websites are searchable and indexed by Google. A Google search as well as a search inside the Herald-Dispatch site only returns things like, "Cabell Midland wallops Winfield", "Photos: Cabell Midland Prom", and "Cabell Midland dismissing classes". Every single story I was able to find falls squarely in the WP:ROUTINE wheelhouse, and is similar coverage to every single public high school in any small city in the U.S., in or out of Appalachia. I did the same search on the Charleston Gazette-Mail site and that was limited to the same sort of routine coverage of high school sports.

Per WP:ROUTINE: Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary events that do not stand out—are probably not notable. If we used coverage like Cabell Midland has received in "dual-purpose" newspapers (e.g., newspapers that might have a regional audience but also dedicate much of their content to purely local issues like high school sports), then the bar for notability will be unreasonably low. Every high school and middle school in the US will likely pass.

Perhaps a better solution than straight up deletion is to consolidate the information down to a paragraph and, along with Huntington High School, include it as a sub-section under Cabell County#High Schools. This would serve to prosify this small list and work to bring the article in-line with MOS guidance. I'm not saying the information isn't useful or good for inclusion, just that there is zero indication from a thorough search of national, regional, and local news for enough SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NORG guidelines. nf utvol (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Studiosity

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

lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Most references are either press releases, primary sources. Also this article contains promotional content. OatPancake (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. But the article is poorly written and the language is not neutral. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @TurboSuperA+ Thanks for the feedback and support. Language may not be neutral, but from what I've read and contributed, it keeps to WP:NPOV and the article represents "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Derek J Moore (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Most references are either press releases, primary sources" There are 10 references included, 6 of them have a DOI and ISSN. The AFR article is not a press release, Julie Hare has 20 years in her field as an education journalist. The article has both critical and pragmatic. I cannot see how this is promotional Derek J Moore (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - as per TurboSuper, the article's matter is notable, but the article itself is not up to standards. Coeusin (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of California Television

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

Non-notable subject; article just describes what the channel does. WP:BEFORE check showed no signs of RS/notability. Sources added since my PROD are both primary. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and California. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As our friend @Wcquidditch: will likely state, this is an example of our looser standards in the late 2000s where any channel airing on a satellite or cable provider, be it national or public access had some pass at WP:N; sadly this lost that once Dish's public service commitment to carry diverse and educational content was wound down (especially in the 9400 tier, which was purposefully never promoted by them, outside the AMC Networks dispute where they put their channels there as a 'punishment', only to make their customers and the courts mad). It's still active for sure as a service online, but so many other universities do the same already, so this is a WP:MILL telecourse and channel promoting the university. Nathannah • 📮 22:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Po Methodist School

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

No refs on the page. Nothing to suggest this junior school meets the criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Hong Kong. JMWt (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything besides a directory entry provided by the school. It exists, but isn't inherently notable. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. No significant coverage or reliable sources with independent coverage WP:N. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater Community School

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

Subject does not appear to be notable - simply existing or having notable alumni does not mean that a school is notable, unless the school itself has been the subject of reliable, secondary coverage. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ireland. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Though I've myself triggered more than a few AfD/PROM noms on non-notable schools, I think this one might just about meet WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Barely. While most of the coverage I found in my own WP:BEFORE is from local/regional papers (like that in The Avondhu of school extension project and alumni), there is some coverage in national outlets (like Irish Examiner and Irish Independent - granted largely "match report" style reporting that is not especially WP:INDEPTH on the school itself). If there is consensus that the school doesn't have independent notability, then (per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and as an WP:ATD) I wonder if the title should be a redirect to Lismore,_County_Waterford#Education. Where much of the cited content could be merged. Outright deletion does not, IMO, seem to be an appropriate outcome... Guliolopez (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stage School Australia

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

The vast majority in unsourced or primary sourced, so I intended to improve the article but very much struggled to find good secondary sources. The school does not seem to fit notability guidelines. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, Schools, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article lacks strong independent sources and relies mostly on primary or promotional content. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Without significant secondary coverage, notability isn’t established. Pridemanty (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not a single independent source cited in the article, which appears to be entirely promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not finding much through online searches. Interestingly, there was an Australian Youth Theatre in the 1940s in Sydney. I think it may be necessary to look in books and journals that aren't online for more info on the various branches and names of this organisation. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I closed this as a Delete but a trusted editor requested that I relist so I'm accommodating that request. Please consider their additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm still in the middle of expanding and editing the article and will return to this discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Arizona Valley Institute of Technology

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

Joint educational district that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. All I could find was either passing mentions or sources linked to the district. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joint technological education district as article creator. There is not enough SIGCOV. There is a need to bolster that article, but the concept is notable, and there is at least a redirect to list ATD. A lot of the smaller JTEDs (though not some of the ones covering metro Phoenix like EVIT or the Pima County one) probably fail the GNG too. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think the JTEDs for the smaller Arizona counties should be merited to merge as an ATD. Though I do not oppose merging all of them into the Joint technological education district. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am thinking of withdrawing this AFD for a merge proposal instead. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Management and Science Institute, Colombo

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

No reliable sources except those by the same company. Appears to be purely promotional UtoD 18:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. UtoD 18:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xaverian Primary School

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

This is an article about a primary school. Per the 2017 RfC, secondary schools aren't inherently notable; this is a primary school. Definitely no inherent notability. As for other things, this article fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. This is a completely unsourced article with no citations, tagged as such since 2013. This article also doesn't use an encyclopedic tone, and can be borderline puffery for a large portion of it. This article also isn't in any other languages. Per above, this article should be deleted. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kenya. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can not locate any significant coverage. GoldRomean (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, no reliable sources with significant coverage is also available through search. Not a single line is verifiable. Hence, fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:V, and WP:RS. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rondebosch Boys' Preparatory School

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

Non-notable primary school. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally non-notable. Wbm4567 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see enough independent sources to show lasting notability. It looks like a regular primary school without the kind of coverage needed for an article. Best to delete according to guidelines. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The school itself is not notable and clearly a promotion. There can be hundreds of not thousands of such schools which do exist but not notable paying for articles if this one is kept, WP:PROMOTION. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable public school. Lefcentreright Discuss 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Are we looking at the sources? There is significant coverage in Schroder, Bill (2019). A headmaster's story: my life in education. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball Publishers. ISBN 9781868429325. and passing mentions in multiple other books, where there are biographies of former students or based on the locality. The passing mentions don't count towards notability, but the first book definitely does. What the passing mentions do flag up is that this is a very old school in South Africa, and that is, in itself, likely to be signficant. Additionally it is well studied. It is one of the research subjects in Non-motorized transport integration into urban transport planning in Africa. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge. 2017. ISBN 9781315598451., which also contains significant coverage. Also in [2] and [3]. Although the research study is primary, background on the school in the study will be secondary, and the fact that it does show up in many studies (these are just a sample) shows again how it is embedded in the community, also evidenced by papers such as this [4], which is a passing mention but makes the same point. And all that is without even beginning to look at newspaper sources, of which there are lots, both past and current. Just a single example for now, a former teacher fighting sexual abuse charges: [5]. This one clearly passed GNG, and I believe the depth of coverage in two of the book sources allows it to pass WP:NORG too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeeksForGeeks

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability of this article appears to be questionable with most sources seeming like undisclosed paid content and no real independent coverage exists. The editing history suggests that this article has largely been edited by the GeeksForGeeks team. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources.Very promotional. - Imcdc Contact 01:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of All Helps High School

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

Notable for one recent event, which already has an article. Can't find any previous coverage. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about the stabbing. CoconutOctopus talk 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nantes school stabbing as creator - the article doesn't have as much potential as I hoped it could have, made it in a rush, not much encyclopedic value even as a stub. 7kk (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. Manyyassin (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Manyyassin (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of independent reliable sources throughout this article, I argue that the majority of this article falls under Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY. Wikipedia should not amplify reports (such as the ISGAP reports and the NCRI report) whose only evidence is an established correlation and not causation. Citing subsequent reporting by the media that further dramatizes the conclusions made by these reports certainly does not help the factual accuracy of this page. Furthermore, there are many statements in this article about critics "speculating", showing that this article is not seeking to provide facts behind this matter, but is simply repeating the speculations of a thinktank. An encyclopedia is not the place to do this.

Overall, the article relies on the speculation of critics and thinktanks and lends undue weight to their reports whose only evidence is flimsy correlative studies. Manyyassin (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious COATRACK ESSAY that overwhelmingly deals with one issue and nothing else; it's one thing if this article talks about many effects, positive or negative, but this is just too much about one topic that does not feature many neutral sources. Nathannah • 📮 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with sources like [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. A rename to something like "Foreign donations..." might be appropriate, since Qatar is the largest donor but other countries such as Saudi Arabia and China are also involved. The ISGAP/NCRI reports have been mentioned in reliable sources, so claiming that "Wikipedia should not amplify" them is puzzling. Also puzzling is the claim that the page "overwhelmingly deals with one issue" - yes, that is what a single Wikipedia page is expected to do. Other complaints about "undue weight" and "speculation" are content disputes about what should be in the article, not about whether it should exist. Astaire (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - I agree that this article meets WP:GNG. My contention is that I do not believe this is encyclopedic content. The central claim of the article is that Qatar is somehow causing antisemitism at American universities. There is no mechanism for this proposed, and the burden of proof is not met by the article's content or sources. This is unencyclopedic content matching the description in WP:NOTADV and its deletion would fall under WP:DEL-REASON #7. Manyyassin (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere in the article where the claim "Qatar is funding antisemitism" is being made in wikivoice. Where present in the article, this claim is always properly attributed to critics (although the sentence This biased approach highlights positive aspects of Islam while sidelining balanced discussions about other religions, particularly Judaism. should be rewritten to make it clear that this is the Lawfare Project's opinion).

If there are others who argue against these critics in reliable sources, then they should be included as per WP:DUE. Otherwise, since you agree that this topic meets GNG, this discussion is better suited for a place like WP:NPOVN. The article may need some reworking to put more emphasis on the facts and less emphasis on speculation, but it should not be deleted. Astaire (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references no. 12 - 16 mentioned at Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States#References easily confirm that notability exists. Shankargb (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing it's not notable, but the balance on this article is so overtly against the issue that there is no opposing side and we require neutrality and balance. Nathannah • 📮 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that it's a notable topic then what are we doing here at AFD? As I said above, this is a content dispute, not an argument for deletion. WP:NPOV says that articles should represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If you don't like the current balance of opinions in the article then add some opposing opinions that have been published in RS. Otherwise this is just WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Astaire (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just WP:NPOV. The burden of proof is not met and the speculations made by the thinktanks are not verifiable. There is no onus on the other side to refute these claims and balance out the article; the lack of evidence means these claims shouldn't be here in the first place. Manyyassin (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a coatrack. Most of the sources appear to be either opinion pieces or from biased sources. I think an article can be written on the subject but it is not encyclopedic in its current form. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources are like that. Need proper source analysis. Shankargb (talk) 23:02, 22 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!} 23:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nom's assertion that the majority of this article falls under WP:NOTADVOCACY. The article attempts to describe the topic from a NPOV, but I do think WP:UNDUE weight is given to the subject of antisemitism and Qatar's influence on it. However, the article meets WP:GNG, so it can be improved and balanced out. There's no reason to delete it.--DesiMoore (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast International Model United Nations

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

I had created this page, but am not fully sure if the sources currently listed or the sources available are enough to establish notability. So would love to get this into a deletion discussion, to get a consensus soon. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Nagaland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like you're the only user who has substantively edited the article. If you want the article deleted, you can tag it with G7. I don't think AfD is the appropriate venue to seek help with improving it, but I'm not sure what is, although someone more familiar with cases like these may provide more meaningful advice. If you don't want to delete it but aren't sure it's ready for publication yet, it can probably be moved to your userspace or draft space to allow you to improve it. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep gotcha. The thing is that I’m 60-40% on the fence for this. I kinda think that the subject is notable owing to the sources but this might be a case of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. So thought that an AfD would be the best way to ascertain notability quickly. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect to List of model United Nations conferences. There doesn't seem to be articles for other conferences, even THIMUN. As for the current content, it reads somewhat promotionally, and with little that would apply to this MUN conference and not any other. That is not to say a MUN conference couldn't be notable, but if it was I would expect there would be more to say. CMD (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Conservatory of Music

AfDs for this article:

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

COI or UPE editing of institute with not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG. C4 was declined, but still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, Schools, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of colleges in British Columbia#Applied institutes as an ATD. Yes, it is named wrong. It likely should be "List of learning institutions in British Columbia". That is a discussion for that article though. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show proof of COI or UPE editing? Nkj01 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI claim lacks evidence. Cited references seem to be from institutes that are separate entities and not from the institute itself. It also has some recognition from a government source as well as other separate sources. 2604:3D08:948B:CD00:90C7:DA08:33D9:C950 (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

No articles proposed for deletion at this time