Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Bartender School

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. With the new sources found, the general consensus clearly seems to be that the article meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Bartender School[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)

No evidence of notability. The sources quoted appear to be based on press releases or interviews - certainly not independent and reliable sources. This article was moved directly from Draft (sandbox) to mainspace without review which has not helped. A review would have flagged up the lack of quality of the sources. Now it is here in mainspace, it fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 15:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 15:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Push back to draft It needs to be approved by AFC. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote. Article has some secondary sources with significant coverage such as The Independent that back it up now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft as per AngusWOOF, I'm not seeing much in terms of notability however I feel moving back and allowing the creator to further work on this is far more productive than just deleting it. –Davey2010^Talk 20:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kudpung and per sources in the article which apparently I somehow missed when !voting, The Independent, Le Figaro and Het Parool are certainly reliable sources, Meets GNG imho. –Davey2010^Talk 14:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In don't know how The Independent, Le Figaro and Het Parool as long-time major established national newspapers in Europe could ever be considered unreliable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC) soures[reply]
Comment: AngusWOOF, AfC doesn't approve anything. Anything they 'pass' and/or move to mainspace is further examined by the official process at NPR by accredited rights holders. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would have pushed it back to Draft if it wasn't ready before nominating here. I just don't like when someone bypasses that process by pushing the article into mainspace without any regards to improving it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to Keep/Delete/Draftify disagreement
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because of the coverage in major news publications in at least three countries. Even though The Independent article is largely an interview, overall the coverage shows the school has an international profile. Sionk (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - international chain of schools backed up by sources in some of the most reliable newspapers going. Meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on demonstrated sourcing to meet GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:08, 13 August 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.