Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Academy of English


 * 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. Wishes of the subject are irrelevant; reasonable doubt that inclusion criteria can be met. Skomorokh 21:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Academy of English

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nomination on behalf of management of the organization via OTRS 2009081110045089:

The Wikipedia article was very close to being a copyright violation of the text at, and the school is not encyclopedically notable enough for Wikipedians to have noticed this for almost 2 years. The school's personnel should not be expected to patrol the Wikipedia article because there aren't enough other editors checking it. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-12t09:23z 09:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking through the history of the page it appears that the academy have tried to get it deleted before, but they used the wrong deletion template . The copyright violation (which is a bit debateable anyway) appears to have been from their own employee, so I'm not sure they can particularly use that argument! I'm not quite sure of the notability of language schools. There are loads of them around, and I don't think they will have quite the same 'automatically notable' status as secondary schools or higher education institutions. Looking at their website they do appear to be a pretty big organisation however. Quantpole (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "automatic notability" of those institutions stems from the fact that almost universally they are documented in depth by multiple independent published works. In the case of U.K. secondary schools, as per your example, they are documented in depth by (for starters) independent government reports, independent and newspaper league tables, local newspaper coverage, and sometimes the publications of local historians.  Notability is not a blanket.  "Automatic notability" is merely no more than the observation that by their natures some subjects will have a high probability of satisfying the PNC. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There's at least one story about them in an RS. --Cyber cobra (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - no valid deletion grounds have been specified. Quite regularly we get educational institutions wanting their page deleted, with variations on the same theme, and this one is no more persuasive than all the other requests that we have rejected. Not only is this an accredited language school that educates both high school age students and adults but it is one with international reach as shown by sources available in foreign reliable media here. TerriersFan (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd expect a school that primarily teaches to foreign students to get a mention in other countries. Are any of the mentions non-trivial? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a private English-language school, and it exists solely to teach the English language to students aged 16 and over. There are thousands of similar schools in the UK. I cannot see that any of them are notable enough to warrant articles on Wikipedia. There are sources which exist to demonstrate that the school exists but no sources to indicate that it is any way notable or different from any of the other similar institutions. Dahliarose (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the same as uniqueness. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shouldn't really let the subject of the article have too much say in this, but it'll take a lot more than one story in a local paper to prove notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article cited by Cybercobra above is almost two-thirds corporate autobiography, being the organization described directly in its own words, as it explicitly says in the opening sentence of the piece. The Primary Notability Criterion explicitly excludes self-publicity, corporate autobiography, and coverage that is little more than re-printed press releases.  I had hopes, upon looking at the Google News search results, of refuting Chris Neville-Smith's "in a local paper" contention quite dramatically, as one result was from a paper in Peru.  It turns out to mention this subject in passing, and provides no information at all about it.  It simply says that someone is learning English there. TerriersFan, you are right that the OTRS ticket is entirely irrelevant.  But you are wrong in your rationale.  Counting search engine hits is not research.  We have to actually read what the search engines turn up.  In this case there is nothing that documents this institution.  The Russian-language sources are like the Peruvian source.  They document no information on this subject, since they mention it entirely in passing when discussing a quite different subject.  I can find no in depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources.  The PNC is not satisified.  Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2009 (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.