Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/École Franco-Polonaise (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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

École Franco-Polonaise
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A short lived private university. Kept 10 years ago when we used to think all schools are notable. Today, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this is not sufficient. No evidence it was accredited. It does not have an entry on Polish Wikipedia, nor does it even seem mentioned there. There are a few mentions in passing in GBooks, but nothing substantial. Ping User:DGG who 10 years ago said 'It's enough it existed', wonder how a decade later you think about this issue? :D Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Complete lack of references. Likely lack of accreditation is also telling.--Darwinek (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to give what I think a fair summary of the present position for universities, not a statement of what I would prefer personally: We never had a practice that all schools are notable. We did have and to a considerable extent still do have a practice that we normally keep articles on secondary schools (or if not kept because of lack of information, merge them), and normally delete ones on primary schools or merge them to the city or district. There was a much disputed RfC, that ended with the ambiguous decision that one could not just quote the SCHOOLCOMM paragraph in Common practices as an argument. It said nothing at all about what the actual practice should be in any particular case. The net effect of it is that we now do not generally keep the very scantiest articles on secondary schools but merge them instead; which ones we keep as separate article or merge/redirect is a case by case decision. In practice, very few existing articles have been nominated for deletion, but we are much less likely to accept new articles if they're minimal.
 * As for universities, we've almost always kept them unless the information is hopelessly minimal, or unless it's clear they are just a trivial branch of another institution, or unless the status can not actually be determined (as is frequently the case in some countries, notably India) but there  was never a full general discussion  about that. They were mentioned once or twice in the RfC, but the focus was on secondary schools. To the extent that there is any strength   in the argument for keeping secondary schools, those arguments for keeping them generally would apply all the more to universities.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I added two good refs.   I think they are quite sufficient to show notability (note that there are other schools with a very similar name, mostly primary schools, and a few institutes in other subjects, and apparently some schools founded in France in the 1920s and 30s. If kept, the full name will be necessary.   DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the main issue, IMHO, is that we should avoid promoting degree mills, and there is no evidence that this wasn't one. Further, the refs are super sparse, and there is little to suggest this won't be an eternal WP:YELLOWPAGES like entry for what, gain, might have been a degree mill. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the article in The Echo, it was  an attempt to bring the French ecole model of premier schools to Poland, not a degree mill,  I don't see the basis for thinking it otherwise. The author, Stanislas du Guerny, is a major French journalistspecialising in economics. .   DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and the comments from Darwinek. KingofGangsters (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - would veer on the side of delete from a purely educational perspective (no notable graduates, limited length of existence of the école), however the closure itself might be notable. This Liberation  article details how subsidies were withdrawn leading to the closure following the elimination of France Telecom from tendering for a GSM network in Poland in the mid-90s and the Polish governemnt failing to meet earlier funding commitments. Possibly then notable for failures in corporate subsidised education and economic conflict in Franco-Polish relations....also interesting to note Presidents of both countries trumpeted the school... Chirac called it a «monument de l'intégration européenne» ... cough, cough --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - per the sources added by DGG and the Liberation article cited above. Notable as an example of Franco-Polish co-operations, an attempt to spread the French model of schooling, and for its apparent failure. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - per the improved WP:RSs and the Liberation article. Wm335td (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.