Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMARO

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. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EMARO

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

I found no significant coverage for this education program. Google News and Google Books had no results. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't tell about how the program is advertised, but it's the 5th year that this program is taking some 30 master students from about 250 applicants. I believe this page should not be deleted. First, because the program exists and we have studied it, so there is no reason why it shouldn't exist in Wikipedia (We've got extensive pages on fictional characters in Wikipedia, why would a page on a real program be deleted?). Also, we keep getting a lot of questions regarding EMARO and how the program is etc in facebook. This means that people actually search for it and I believe we all agree "looking it up in Wikipedia" is much more preferable than asking on facebook! Shahbaz Youssefi (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That only works if Wikipedia has verifiable information to report. Far from "there is no reason why it shouldn't exist in Wikipedia", a thing doesn't belong in Wikipedia if the world at large hasn't independently documented it, per deletion policy. The fictional characters, you'll find, are documented. Literary critics and analysts write about them, in some cases at great length over several centuries. Show that the same is true of your program. This is an encyclopaedia of the documented and known, not of the merely real. My house is real. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this program that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the article nor this discussion provide any grounds to believe that this passes WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:02, 6 June 2012 (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.