Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Islamic College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  Sandstein  14:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Islamic College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete:Is there some valid reason why a college is not notable? A quick Google search has found mention of it here in a Breitbart article.[1] It's also mentioned in this Telegraph article[2]. Also mentioned on the BBC.[3] So, what was the reason this was flagged?16:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)NicholasJB (talk)

References

  1. ^ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/28/140-year-history-ends-cambridge-methodist-church-bought-islamic-college/ 140-Year History Ends: Cambridge Methodist Church Bought By Islamic College.
  2. ^ http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/koran-carla-power/ What the Koran really says about women
  3. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-33751522 Plans for 'first' women-led mosque discussed
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 09:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on failing WP:GNG. The mentioned sources give nothing but passing mentions (and Breitbart is not exactly the most reliable/neutral of sources); nothing substantial to develop it beyond a permastub. But of course the dreaded WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay will be brought up, which for some obscure reason overrides the General Notability Guideline. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2016 (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.