Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corvid College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Mazca (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 9 April 2020 (Corvid College: Closed as delete (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. The overall consensus is that the sources provided are insufficiently reliable to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 00:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corvid College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable "educational" movement - this is not an actual college or school. there is no meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. userdude 22:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. userdude 22:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. userdude 22:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. userdude 22:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no but we do require significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have a wide readership, not hyper local rags and blog posts (Bay Citizen.) Your comparison to The Beatles is patently absurd. Praxidicae (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, absurdity was rather what I was going for. It was a light-hearted criticism of an odd tendency for otherwise sensible editors to pad out prod rationales with claims that really have nothing to do with whether an article should be deleted; I wouldn't worry too much about it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:37, 1 April 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.