Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schola Latina Universalis

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. Courcelles 02:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schola Latina Universalis[edit]

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

I don't think this web-based school passes WP:WEB or WP:ORG. I can't find any reliable sources online, and the reference given in the article - the journal Melissa - doesn't seem to be reliable. I found what I think is the journal's website here, but I am not sure that it would pass WP:RS. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 28 December 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, Courcelles 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I could find no secondary sources and only a handful of primary ones (advertising the school). The journal Melissa cited on the page appears to be self-published and therefore less reliable. Furthermore, if this is the article cited (the date and author match, but not the title), it does not appear to mention the school. Cnilep (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 05:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Describes itself as a school but is really just a website, and doesn't come close to meeting the relevant standard. Chick Bowen 04:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An online learning course falls under the auspices of WP:WEB, which this doesn't satisfy in the slightest. Can't locate any independent sources, even in Latin... Yunshui 雲‍水 15:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Originalfemaletenor (talk · contribs) has posted a possible source at a help desk thread: "the recent reference in the UK journal 'Current Archaeology' for December 2012 (in the section called 'Odd socs' which appears on the final page - I think it's page 50". -- John of Reading (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. The single possible reference mentioned above won't be enough on its own. This looks like an advert masquerading as an article, IMO. ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable online course; the Current Archaeology mention is a mere squib about an oddity, not the requisite substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above evidence that it is not notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:01, 23 January 2013 (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.