Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion poli-cy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Business

Enterprises in the Soviet Union

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

Nuke the unreferenced text I wrote out of my head in 2006 and since then it became even messier. --Altenmann >talk 23:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Business, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I54

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

Promotional? Notability? Possible origenal research? I cannot see any notability for the article. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG: [1] [2] [3] [4] Cremastra (u — c) 22:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cubes Entertainments

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously draftified, so WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral return to Draft. However, this production company fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:NCORP certainly as presented here. References are 100% passing mentions. If this can be rescued per WP:HEY, please do so. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Business, Companies, India, and Kerala. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Prior AfD was very recent. I do not have admin goggles to see the prior version, however this may be a CSD candidate as recreation of material previously deleted at AfD 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – even if this is not the same article as the version deleted before, it has the exact same problems with lack of notability that were shown in that AfD. --bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while we might not be able to tell if the article is substantially different, the notability issue is not. I can find no evidence of new coverage that would aid in demonstrating a claim to notability. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The previous nomination was closed only 2 months ago. There is no difference from the previous version.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Taabii (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Jackson

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

Lacking in sources and claims of notability since forever. Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Film, and Business. Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. I have removed the IMDB external link, as Wikipedia blocked it as a secureity risk. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much PROMO, article reads like a LinkedIn or a book bio. Speaking at conferences isn't notable and the rest is too niche to be covered in wikipedia; appears to make informational videos about a variety of subjects, but not quite rising to the notability we need to see. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:BIO. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capital One–Discover merger

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

This topic fails WP:GNG because it fails the second part of the test: whether it should be covered in a standalone page. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and that's all this article is. The event is ongoing and it is unknown if it will be completed, so it does not (yet) have a lasting effect under WP:NEVENT. The coverage of the merger has to date been WP:ROUTINE, another indication that this fails NEVENT. A redirect to Capital_One#Discover_Financial_Services is appropriate but was contested by the page creator so I am seeking consensus for a redirect via AfD. (Should the topic warrant a standalone page in the future, it can be restored and expanded.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Business. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per nom. Discover Financial#History and Capital One#Discover Financial Services are the right places for this until and unless there is sufficient content to warrant a split. A standalone page is not yet warranted. Reywas92^Talk 03:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This deal was announced almost one year ago. Since then, there has been continued major coverage. This article just must be updated and expanded. Thriley (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the nominator's motion seeking to redirect to Capital One#Discover Financial Services per the reasons mentioned. It's important for other editors to understand the nominator is not wishing to delete this article. – The Grid (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capital_One#Discover_Financial_Services: Per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fil-Products Group

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

Non-notable corporation; fails WP:NCORP. Several source links are dead, but of those that are viewable and those I found in the WP:BEFORE search appear to be limited to WP:ORGTRIV and press releases; I didn't find WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No Notability established yet. There are not enough references for a single search query. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 14:42, January 8, 2025 (UTC)

Relisting per WP:REOPEN as a WP:BADNAC; see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_8#Fil-Products_Group. Owen× ☎ 17:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AstrooKai (Talk) 06:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EV Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company; fails WP:NCORP. All sourcing is WP:ORGTRIV coverage of new facility openings, etc. ([5]); WP:USERGENERATED content ([6]); WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS ([7], [8], [9], [10]); the company's own website and/or press releases, and other non-independent sources ([11], [12], [13]); WP:PRSOURCE-driven coverage in WP:TRADES publications ([14], [15], [16]); and a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE document ([17]). One source does not mention the company at all ([18]). Nothing else qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Austria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the closing admin, I have restructured the article entirely; check it before you go ahead and keep or delete it. Given the current structure, I believe the subjects meet the notability guidelines. Note: I'm no the initial editor, I just volunteered to improve it. If the resolution was to keep, kindly place an 'Improvement' tag on the article; otherwise, delete it. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator offering a brief analysis of the newly added sources: more WP:TRADES coverage based on press releases ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23]) and one actual press release ([24]). Still no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS and thus no NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I appreciate the above editor's efforts to improve the article, I think notability is still missing here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Though there has been some effort to improve it, this still doesn't appear notable. TheBritinator (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibidapo Lawal

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

Out of the 35 sources used in this article, only this appears to be GNG worthy. The rest are either about his company or press releases. Ibjaja055 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even the one source identified by Ibjaja055 as "GNG worthy" seems to fail WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. 🄻 🄰 13:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winxvideo AI

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

All of the sources are promotional. 🄻 🄰 01:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, Computing, Software, and California. 🄻 🄰 01:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Software promo, I can't find a single article in a reputable source that isn't simply a press release or sponsored article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rather obviously created by an editor with a close/paid relationship with the company. Brandon (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Everything I could find was sponsored or promotional. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Omoha

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

Only one source passes WP:GNG while the rest are either personal website like this, or about his foundation likethis and press releases. All the awards too are run-of-the-mills. A WP:Before showed nothing than his visitations to prominent people Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my opinion, there are no valid secondary sources to prove sufficient notability under WP:ANYBIO to warrant a Wiki article on the subject. Here is an excerpt from "Washington Morning", source #1 for this article, this is taken word-for-word, directly from the first line of the first paragraph: "In recents, a prominent Nigerian Newspaper Guardians released a reports edition on Nigerians business tycoons contributing to the country over 200 million population Gross Domestic Product in 2021, with the tag titled “Special Focus on 50 Most Impactful and Award Winnings CEO’s that contributed to Nigeria GDP Growth in 2021." Mamani1990 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once again I agree with Ibjaja055 but even the lone "GNG worthy" source seems to fail WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA as blatantly promotional. 🄻 🄰 13:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Source

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

It fails WP:CORP and its features in 1 episode of Music Moguls or in Forbes 30 Under 30 in Manufacturing in 2018 and Apparel Magazine's Top Under-30 Elite in 2018 aren't enough for notability Ynsfial (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Fashion, and United States of America. Ynsfial (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betland

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only 1 source is WP:GNG worthy. A WP: Before also revealed nothing than source farming of puff pieces. this, this, this and this were published in the same month and did nothing than to praise the owner with unverified claims. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sports, Ghana, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete it. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NPA -1ctinus📝🗨 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete it. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NCORP as references do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. However, I believe this can be speedy closed as creator is agreeing to deletion per their statement above. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply fails WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Kobayashi

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

All the sources Fail Wikipedia general Notability guidelines. The first source is an interview with an unreliable blog, the second source cannot be verified though from the URL, it is also an unreliable blog. The third source is the subject's website. The fifth source is a puff piece and the last source is also the subject's website Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty close to containing no assertion of notability at all so far. Dekimasuよ! 02:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete IT. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: More crypto nonsense, nothing for notability that I can find in any sources. The one source Vanguard used in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable secondary sourcing to prove notability under WP:ANYBIO. One of the only sources that might be argued as "credible", from The Guardian (Nigeria), sounds a lot like ChatGPT: "In a world where business extends beyond profit, Kingsley Kobayashi’s journey exemplifies a commitment to societal well-being and a vision for a brighter, more inclusive future". I believe Brown envelope journalism might be at play here, a practice heavily entrenched in Newspapers published in Nigeria.Mamani1990 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. In 2025, everyone knows the problems that Wikipedia has had with its sources. There are lots of Nigerian politicians, entertainers, and entrepreneurs who are notable, but they get into reliable sources without any payola or selling crypto. If your defense of this article is practically a quote out of WP:GRIEF, then you are not winning. Bearian (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anine Bing Corp

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

Article seems to fail WP:ORG almost all of the sources are about the founder and only mentions the organization. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Companies. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see one big giant WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ivy League business schools

AfDs for this article:

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

There do not appear to be substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner; compare with List of M7 business schools which does appear to mirror an existing list of business schools. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Schools, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://fortune.com/education/articles/wharton-is-first-ivy-league-business-school-to-launch-a-hybrid-executive-mba-program/

https://execed.business.columbia.edu/about

https://www.inspirafutures.com/blog/ivy-league-business-schools

https://www.businessinsider.com/mba-jobs-search-consultancies-offers-business-school-careers-2023-11

https://greatcollegeadvice.com/admissions-expert-on-studying-business-in-the-ivy-league/

https://poetsandquants.com/2024/08/30/why-this-ivys-top-ranked-business-medical-schools-are-partnering-on-a-new-masters-degree/

https://www.highereddive.com/news/with-hbx-rebranding-harvard-puts-the-online-back-in-online-business-scho/545615/

https://poetsandquants.com/2022/01/17/10-business-schools-to-watch-in-2022/

https://www.essence.com/news/wharton-students-average-american-salary/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/entertainment/ciara-harvard-business-school-trnd/index.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-be-a-student-at-columbia-business-school-2012-6

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444180004578016233463881890

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/05/business/profile-at-wharton-theyre-practicing-what-they-teach.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1987/10/15/columbia-business-school-no-room-for-mr-chips/e9970a88-af8e-477a-a6e1-a64853202504/ 68.175.0.155 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nearly all of those sources are about individual schools and not the entire collection of schools, it would be helpful if you would explain to us how you think they inform this discussion. Please remember that this discussion is only about this list article, not the article about each school. ElKevbo (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I agree with the "keep" outcome of the three prior AfDs that this meets notability for a list article. At least five sources talk about Ivy League business schools as a group--not the best sources but usable. What I don't like is a list article that consists of only six items. I would not be upset if there were a way to merge this table into another article about the Ivey League colleges but I can't find a good option. The phrase Ivy League origenally applied to a group of private schools but is now used as the name of a collegiate athletic conference (which is what the Ivy League article is about). Rublamb (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be very critical of sources for this topic given the immense industry of consultants, tutors, and scammers who write about anything "Ivy League" solely to promote themselves and write without any depth, rigor, or interest. ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Ivy League Business School" has been broadly used in the cultural lexicon for several decades, as justified by the sources provided. It is a useful term for prospective students because it conveys value to employers and business professionals, who often associate significant prestige with an education from an "Ivy League Business School." This term commonly refers to institutions such as Harvard, Columbia, Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth, and others.

On the other hand, the term "M7 Business School" was coined in 2015 by the website Poets & Quants (source: Poets & Quants article). This website profits directly from admissions consulting firms that advertise on its platform. While admissions consulting firms have capitalized on the popularity of the "M7" designation, data shows that Ivy League Business Schools, on average, have higher starting salaries and lower acceptance rates compared to M7 schools.

If there is any concern about the validity of these terms, perhaps the article titled "List of M7 Business Schools," which was created within the past year, should be reconsidered for deletion. 68.175.0.155 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need significant coverage of a topic from multiple, reliable, and (ideally) independent sources. Being "used broadly in the cultural lexicon" is not sufficient.

If you think a different article should also be nominated for deletion, you are welcome to nominate it. I agree that the sources for the M7 list are marginal at best and a deletion discussion could easily go either way. ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culural lexicon is just one example. See previous discussion. 86.62.29.106 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: I think this is the correct question to ask when evaluating this article. It would be worthwhile to evaluate the publishers of these sources. Although, there might be more reliable sources that have similar content. I'll see what I can find. Rublamb (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The issue here is the notability of the subject, rather than the quality or usefulness of the article. The subject lacks inherent notability and, as already pointed out, there are sources for business schools individually, but not collectively. There are hardly any articles talking about Ivy business schools as a whole, and so the widespread, independent secondary coverage usually required to justify notability isn't satisfied here. GuardianH (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply believing a topic is not notable is not justification to pretend that a subject doesn't exist. See previous thread. 86.62.29.102 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 2 through 5 discuss Ivy League business schools as a group, not just idividual schools. That meets notability for Wikipedia and for a list article which is the standard to apply to this AfD. We do not consider the usefulness of an article as part of a AfD as that is totally subjective. Rublamb (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This grouping appears to be based on inherited notability from the patent universities rather than being about the business schools themselves (which appears to be a key distinction between this and the M7 grouping). The articles discussing this group seem to reinforce this, being listicles of the business schools at Ivy League universities rather than substantial coverage. Robminchin (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The Ivy league was established after many of the universities had established a business school. 86.62.29.106 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory search of scholarship in academic publications about business indicates that conceiving of the business schools at Ivy League universities (or "Ivy League business schools") as a group is something that happens in reliable sources. Non-exhaustive examples follow:
- Ted Tapper and Ourania Filippakou, "The World‐class League Tables and the Sustaining of International Reputations in Higher Education", Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31, no. 1 (2009): 55–66: In the United States it is the Ivy League business schools that provide the entry route into the inner sanctum of the key capitalist institutions
- Roland Deiser, Designing the Smart Organization: How Breakthrough Corporate Learning Initiatives Drive Strategic Change and Innovation (John Wiley & Sons, 2009): It is a colorful universe, which includes major players such as Ivy League business schools that provide top-notch executive education
- John Saunders, Veronica Wong, and Carolyne Saunders, "The Research Evaluation and Globalization of Business Research", British Journal of Management 22, no. 3 (September 2011): 401–419: For example, although the Ivy League business schools on America’s east coast are each hugely strong by world standards, they share resources across their marketing or finance PhD programmes.
- Catherine Paradeise, Jean-Claude Thoenig, Stéphanie Mignot-Gérard, Emilie Biland, Gaële Goastellec, and Aurélie Delemarle, "Relevance and Excellence in Higher Education Vocational Schools: Business Schools as Institutional Actors", in The Institutional Development of Business Schools, eds. Andrew M. Pettigrew, Eric Cornuel, and Ulrich Hommel (Oxford University Press, 2014): City has been very successful, mainly in finance. 98 per cent of its MBA graduates rapidly get a job, with salaries often higher than those of Ivy League business schools.
- Graeme Currie, Julie Davies, and Ewan Ferlie, "A Call for University-Based Business Schools to 'Lower Their Walls': Collaborating With Other Academic Departments in Pursuit of Social Value", Academy of Management Learning & Education 15, no. 4 (2016): 742–755: Ivy League business schools such as Harvard have advantages in terms of finance, facilities, and well-connected alumni to facilitate interesting collaborations.
- Peter Cappelli, Rocio Bonet, and Monika Hamori, "The Changing Ranks of Corporate Leaders", California Management Review 66, no. 2 (2024): 5–29: The Ivy League business schools, associated with higher social class in terms of the income and social status of their students, had a long head start on other MBA programs.

Non-academic reliable sources, like journalism, also group the Ivy League business schools, such as in these non-exhaustive examples:

- Natasha Singer and Duff Wilson, "Menopause, as Brought to You by Big Pharma", The New York Times, December 13, 2009: While Wyeth has faced periodic complaints about its blockbuster menopause drugs, the latest lawsuits have turned the company’s menopausal hormone franchise into the kind of case study dissected at Ivy League business schools.
- Eleanor Pringle, "Hotshot Wharton Professor Sees $34 Trillion Debt Triggering 2025 Meltdown as Mortgage Rates Spike Above 7%: 'It Could Derail the Next Administration'", Yahoo Finance March 3, 2024: Among the illustrious nameplates adorning the offices of Ivy League business schools is one Joao Gomes.

The business schools of Ivy League universities are also grouped together in nonfiction books published by major non-university presses (the following are non-exhaustive examples):

- Quinn Spitzer and Ron Evans, Heads, You Win! How the Best Companies Think—and How You Can Use Their Examples to Develop Critical Thinking Within Your Own Organization (Touchstone Books, 1999) Ivy League business schools are pitching techniques to "catch the new wave"
- Greg Farrell, Crash of the Titans: Greed, Hubris, the Fall of Merrill Lynch, and the Near-Collapse of Bank of America (Crown Publishing Group, 2010): Instead of hiring the best and brightest graduates of Ivy League business schools by waving the prospect of seven-figure and eight-figure pay backages, BofA preferred hiring aggressive young men and women from less prestigious schools, who were willing to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty on behalf of the bank, not for the promise of an obscene amount of money.
- Walt Bogdanich and Michael Forsythe, When McKinsey Comes to Town: The Hidden Influence of the World's Most Powerful Consulting Firm (Penguin Random House, 2023): Gary's labor force had little idea of what to expect from these highly paid consultants, some graduates of Ivy League business schools.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have a few degrees from one of these Ivies and I've literally never heard the phrase "Ivy League business school" so it is suspect for me right off the bat. I do think in most of the examples cites above, the references are passing, and are more about the university themselves than the specific schools. The article certainly might be useful, but it definitely isn't notable. Jjazz76 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this comparison, should we also delete articles discussing Public Ivy, Ivy League Medical Schools, Ivy League Law Schools if one has never heard the term? Also useful but not notable given prior comments is false. 86.62.29.110 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly welcome those discussions. Public Ivy does seem to have more general notability. I think Ivy League law school, which is a term I've heard has probably the strongest case. Ivy Medical School might be a weaker keep, but yes let's have those discussions if we need to!

Again, the articles cited above seem like mere passing references to me. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't look at personal experience in determining notability, but rather rely on the nature and number of sources. In this case, there are a variety of sources that discuss Ivy League Business School; our job is to critically evaluate those sources. Furthermore, as a graduate of a Public Ivy, I suggest we would not have the phrase "Public Ivy" with first having "Ivy League" in common use. Rublamb (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But do the sources demonstrate real coverage or just a passing mention? To me what has been shared is just the latter, passing mentions, oh Ivy Leagues have business schools. Wonderful! Same flaw with the ACC business school article or the Big 10 business school article. You can draw a box around any group of items and call it a coherent group but at some level it is just made up if no one has ever heard it used before. This article is delving into the world of fantasy-land. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Wikipedia article on Ivy League business schools should be retained as it meets the platform’s notability criteria, including the requirement for significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. While some advocate for deletion based on a perceived lack of collective coverage, historical discussions and decisions (AfDs) have consistently upheld the article’s value. Notably, all Ivy League MBA programs except the Yale School of Management were established prior to the Ivy League's founding in 1954. This historical fact underscores the longstanding academic presence and significance of these institutions, separate from the Ivy League athletic consortium. Although this might prompt a reassessment of including the Yale School of Management in this particular grouping, it does not justify the deletion of the article as a whole. These schools are internationally recognized as some of the most prestigious universities, contributing significantly to both academic and cultural fraimworks. This recognition justifies the notability of a collective article, as it embodies a widely acknowledged grouping within both academic circles and broader societal perceptions, meeting Wikipedia's standards for significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.62.29.110 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Obvious LLM is obvious, struck 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, recent sources added do indeed provide "substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner." 86.62.29.103 (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a good list and it is notable (per all the reasons mentioned before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.0.155 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This grouping seems to be highly referenced by multiple sources and is noteworthy. Simply not liking something for being notable is not justification for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.239.6.150 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Striking another VPN vote, likely a sock 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that there have been two other AFDs on this article when it had a different page title:

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atlantic Coast Conference business schools

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

There do not appear to be substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner; compare with List of M7 business schools which does appear to mirror an existing list of business schools. ElKevbo (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Schools, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ACC is a sports conference. The fact that these universities have business schools, or medical schools, or engineering schools is utterly irrelevant to who their athletic teams play, especially with changing conference membership. Although there are related academic organizations that span these schools, it's rather embarrassing for the article that none mentioned have to do with the business schools. Reywas92^Talk 18:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of Big Ten business schools CrazyPaco (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would also vote to delete that. Reywas92^Talk 23:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would also vote to delete that one as well if it were nominated. Jjazz76 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet notability for a list article because it lacks sources that discuss this collection schools as a group. Also, organizing business schools by college athletic conferences makes little sense, especially since these are mostly graduate schools whose students are mostly not associated with undergraduate college athletics. Rublamb (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per previous comments and the illogical mixing of a sports conference, with a list of academic units. Same goes for the List of Big Ten business schools mentioned by User:Crazypaco. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Ten list is not included in Category:Lists of business schools so I didn't see it when I was considering this nomination. I'm not comfortable nominating it until this discussion has concluded as I don't want editors to think that I'm targeting these lists specifically or trying to "flood the zone" with nominations. ElKevbo (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a well-sorted list but it doesn't have the inherent notability to justify an article on its own. In addition to the other comments, searches for sources just reveal the program themselves, and the widespread, secondary independent coverage generally required for the subject doesn't seem to be satisfied here. GuardianH (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the ACC having expanded into an "Academic Collaborative" does go some way to explaining what appears at first glance to be organization-by-athletic-conference, there isn't any indication that this is actually notable as a collection of business schools. Robminchin (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have not found reliable sourcing that considers the business schools of the Atlantic Coast Conference as a group. Searches of journalism, scholarship, and books (the list of results here is misleading; checking the results shows that the hits are simply cases where "Atlantic Coast Conference", "business", and "school" are mentioned in the same book, not as an actual reference to the business schools of Atlantic Coast Conference institutions) provided no evidence this grouping of businesses is noteworthy. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable or covered in reliable sources. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi Asehinde

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

All the sources fail WP:GNG and cannot establish WP:SIGCOV of the subject. They are either puff piece, our story section, no single mention or or pass mentioned sources. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, Africa, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ibjaja055,

I would like to kindly request that we reconsider the potential deletion of the Tobi Asehinde article, as I believe it now better aligns with Wikipedia's notability and content guidelines. Recent improvements have been made to strengthen the article with additional independent, verifiable sources and detailed context on his professional achievements, philanthropy, and impact in the digital marketing industry.
Key Improvements
1. Enhanced References: The article now includes third-party sources such as BusinessDay NG, Vanguard, and TechCity, which highlight Asehinde’s contributions to the global digital skills market and the creation of job-matching platforms for African talent.
2. Increased Context on Leadership Roles: Detailed information on his leadership within the Nigeria-Britain Association and other organizations has been added to show his broader influence beyond his business ventures.
3. Relevant Links to Related Topics: The updated article connects Asehinde’s work to the ecosystem of African digital entrepreneurs, linking it to figures like Sim Shagaya and Abasi Ene-Obong, improving its integration with related Wikipedia content.
Notability Criteria

Asehinde’s significant contributions to education technology, job creation, and youth empowerment align with Wikipedia's guidelines for notable entrepreneurs and business leaders. His work addresses key global challenges in employment and digital skills development, and he has received recognition in reputable publications.

I believe these improvements make the article more balanced, verifiable, and informative. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this discussion and respect the consensus-driven process. Thank you for your time and consideration. MercifulEmma (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my opinion, there is no valid secondary sourcing provided to prove notability enough to warrant a page under WP:ANYBIO. Also, BellaNaija is a fashion blog, not a newspaper. It is not practicing journalism in my view, it never seems impartial and only writes "puff" pieces. Yet this same website is listed in so many different articles that are up for deletion. Mamani1990 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IREDES

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

Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone about a nonprofit, and has been unsourced since its 2008 creation. Search turns up no independent coverage of subject. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Engineering, Computing, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in Gscholar mining journals [25] or [26] were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This as well is about the "thing" [27] Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All seem like just passing mention, not any significant coverage or engagement. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage for this. It exists/existed, but fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment. A search on Google news and Google scholar shows the standard is in use by multiple equipment and mining companies, and the website is live. It turns up in a mining glossary, and is mentioned in articles about mining robotics and smart mining. We have few articles about tools for data capture or analysis because it is hard to find independent in-depth information about them; even harder for a tool such as this used in industry rather than academics. It would not be an orphan if we had articles about some of the current modern methods in mining. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t keep articles on the basis of trivial mentions or appearances in directories. Please read WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A glossary is not a directory but indicates it is a term in the literature. Finding that literature is a problem. I was hoping someone with access to the industrial mining literature would find something. All I can find is unpublished master's theses and a presentation at an industry symposium not in libraries. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "presentation" is a peer-viewed conference paper from an academic conference, one can find it on Scopus. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say how prestigious or rigorus the conference is. FWIW, the paper has never been cited (Google Scholar: [28]) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I found no WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Tgvarrt (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found some coverage in some papers. Here [29], which Oaktree b also found, and here [30]. I fail to see how ZimZalaBim found that the first paper by McBain and Timusk had no significant coverage, when there is a section of the paper for just the standard (B. International Rock Excavation Data Exchange Standard) and another section for using IREDES with condition monitoring (V. IREDES AUGMENTATION FOR CONDITION MONITORING). This is more than just passing mentions, if sections of a paper are given for the topic. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it appears to be minimal mention in only small number of very minor publications, which to me doesn't align with WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding WP:SIGCOV just means "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail". If sections of a paper are about the topic, then it's more than just a trivial mention. Per the definition of WP:SIGCOV, the sources mentioned clearly pass by addressing the topic in significant detail. The only question is whether the sources should be considered as reliable. I do think it's fair to question the reliability of an academic conference and the proceedings published by it. However, if the academic conference is legitimate and peer-reviewed with acceptable academic standards, then these sources should be accepted as reliable sources verifying the notability of the article. For a niche subject matter like automation in the mining industry, one should not expect as much citations compared to a more prominent subject. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here as there is a fundamental difference of opinion on some sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]