Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Partnerships Programme

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 keep. Both keep !votes were made before sources had been added to the article. Whilst it seems that an editor has disputed that the added sources are WP:SIGCOV, there is not enough of an explanation as to why it cannot qualify as SIGCOV. In addition, it has been mentioned by Just Chilling that there are reliable sources not yet mentioned in the article, who's comment has not been responded to. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University Partnerships Programme[edit]

[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:GNG. No sources in article since 2011. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced entry/listing with almost no information about what this actually is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. I added two references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

......... You added two brief mentions .... On websites called "property forum" and "property wire" ... And scolded the nominator based on that? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was going to do a routine vote to delete corpspam, but this has more hits on Google Scholar than I expected. In particular, the (open access?) [1] ] has a one page case study dedicated to "Jarvis’s specialist business unit, the University Partnerships Programme (UPP)". My main concern is that I am not sure if this is the same entity. If it is the same entity, I'd vote "weak keep", but I am unsure if this is or if there are multiple entities with the name "University Partnerships Programme". Do ping me if there is any further information on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a significant and influential organisation. Searches on this title combined with UPP Group Holdings throw up sufficient sources from which the article can be expanded to meet WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2019 (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.