Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning Planet Institute

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. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we cannot rely on French Wikipedia as justification of notability. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Planet Institute

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. WP:BEFORE, runs out of relevant results before anything even remotely independent or reliable shows up for either its current or past name. Article is the focus of a large number of undisclosed paid editors as well, who don't seem to really give a hoot about our policies or anything. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and France. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. on the basis of the extensive french wp article, which explains the notability much better. This is a special purpose consortium of some extremely prestigeous universities, and for French institutions like this ,I tend to follow the judgement of the frWP. DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NSCHOOL says all for profit educational organizations must be considered as commercial organizations thus should satisfy WP:NCORP. The guideline doesn't respite not-for-profit educational institutions from the requirement of passing WP:ORG either. All the references in this article are either irrelevant, or insignificant, or dependent on the subject or isn't reliable. The subject doesn't look like it passes WP:ORG from any pov. The lede is very promotional and there are pinches of promotionalisms in other parts of the article. The involvement of eight SPA in a single non-notable article is too much to ignore since I consider it to be a violent attack on Wikipedia's integrity. SPA contributions: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and other IPs. This article doesn't have a place in our English Wikipedia. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:17, 25 May 2022 (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.