Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstudent (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interstudent[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)

Notability fail. As stated in the last AfD, the sourcing largely consists of the many universities involved announcing the results. Secondary coverage is minimal, if any. There is some reason to believe that the last AfD may have had some skulduggery to it; see the COIN discussion if interested. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches for independent coverage e.g. with "Perspektywy" "interstudent" -site:Perspektywy.org -site:studyinpoland.pl -site:Perspektywy.pl have not found any results. We only have this article due to the creator seemingly being a recipient. In the previous AFD, all keep !voters are socks. SmartSE (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Last statement false. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: On what basis is it false? Look at for example: [1] [2] [3] quack quack quack. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, you are right. It seemed to me that Renata voted keep, and she is a respected editor. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Such articles are often problematic, but the article does link to one reliable source - Gazeta Wyborcza is a major Polish newspaper and it covered the 2017 event [4]. That said, it was only its local edition that did so, and the coverage of the event is one paragraph long, the rest is about the student who won. I found a few more similar mentions that seem relatively independent: [5] in Dziennik Polski, [6] and several related ([7], etc.) on the portal by the Polish Ministry of Education. That said, the coverage of the competition is a paragraph long at best. Borderline at best, and I am leaning towards weak delete but I will see what others can find. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Ukrainian and Russian sources. Sorry, no can read Chinese or Syriac :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep. reliable sources exist, including coming from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. That the article is small it is no surprise: there is nothing much to write: it is a competition, and there are winners. Its notability is not worse than various beauty pageants, and importance for civilization is way higher. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - changed opinion after deeper research trying to find arguments. The parent organization is nonnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Government sponsored organisations of this type are very rarely notable, unless it is a individual or for the individual. If its an organisation, being puffed by a government is no magic bullet to establish notability, and don't really see if here. If it was major prize, it would would be mentioned everywhere and its not. It is more probably a stepping stone and as such, its probably not notable for at least 10 years or more. By then it will be well established and respected and covered. But at the moment, the sources are borderline ropey at the best. To be honest it looks like a foreign student promotion programme, more accurately. That is what it is. scope_creep^Talk 00:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC
- Please cite which Wikipedia rule you are referring to. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see this passing WP:EVENTCRIT. On the surface, it might be presumed per WP:GNG but I think a closer look based on EventCrit reveals this fails per GNG: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". // Timothy :: talk 16:50, 13 August 2020 (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.