Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollos University

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apollos University[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N. All references provided are questionable (from business listings and promotional services). No trusted media coverage to be found in a Google News search. The primary editor seems to have an interest in this institution. Umhsbrek (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News, Google books show nothing. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Huge private university. Obviously notable per WP:SCHOOLS. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in existing references suggest that it is a "huge private university". This article fails WP:N and WP:ORG. There is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to satisfy WP:GNG. All references used in the current article are either first party, unreliable or trivial mentions. Most of the references are for the accreditation the organization has but they all do not establish the notability of the subject. Please see WP:RS on identifying reliable sources. Umhsbrek (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ARTN to educate yourself away from the popular fallacy that the sources presently in the article have anything whatsoever to do with notability. They do not, which is a fatal flaw in your nomination. You ought to consider withdrawing it. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a fallacy I was only relying the lack of reliable source in the article to establish non-notability. There are no reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. I quote WP:ARTN, "If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable." This is the basis of my nom. Umhsbrek (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large private university with full government certification; do some WP:BEFORE. The nine-edit account seeming to know how to do two AfD's also raises some alarm bells. Nate • (chatter) 20:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and attack the argument not the arguer. I wanted to improve the article but I couldn't find any sources from Google. Most mentions of "Apollos University" are about people who have graduated there but not the university itself or business/university/course listings. Both types of sources do not establish notability. Umhsbrek (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everything can be examined and scrutinized within an AfD, including the age and intent of your account. When you bring a nomination, you also understand that you have to build a proper case for deletion, which I have not found here. This includes your record showing that instead of regular edits, you immediately swerved to bring two schools to deletion, suggesting you've been here before and are certainly no new user. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you cared to look at my crosswiki contributions, you would have seen I have done a fair bit of editing on Wikidata. I came across this article there. I have also made it my policy to read as much as possible before contributing on another project. The proper case of deletion has been stated a number of times already, which is that there is no reliable sources to be found publicly available to improve the article. Let's analyze the six results from Google News:

[1] - Press release by the university republished on BusinessWire, a business distribution platform for press releases (not a reliable source because a press release is promotional and lacks meaningful editorial oversight).
[2], [3], [4], [5], [6] - Newspaper reports on people who have obtained degrees from the university or have worked at the university that are only trivial mentions of the university (does not meet significant coverage criterion of the general notability guideline). Umhsbrek (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:SCHOOLS standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own searching fails to find any WP:RS. There's first-party pages. There's directory listings in various education sites. There's facebook, linkedin, twitter, glassdoor, yelp, etc. But so far, I haven't found a single article in a newspaper or anything that I could use to get past WP:GNG. I don't understand And Adoil Descended's comment above; WP:SCHOOLS isn't a standard. It's not even a guideline. It's a list of other pages related to schools. What does Passes WP:SCHOOLS standards mean? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2018 (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.