Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vocabulary portal of the University of Leipzig


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Vocabulary portal of the University of Leipzig

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There are no sources either in this article or in its German counterpart indicating that this website is independently notable from the University of Leipzig, which runs the website. I am likewise unable to find any that would pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. As a result, I propose that this be redirected to University of Leipzig, where the vocabulary portal can be sufficiently covered within the context of the university. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, not redirect The only coverage I can find is a passing mention in a news article from 2013. Unless there are substantial independent sources covering this webpage, it would be WP:UNDUE to mention on the main ULeipzig article, and therefore the redirect would be inappropriate as it would not give anyone following it information on the topic they are looking for (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete there just isn't the independent sources out there that are needed for this to be notable. I don't think a redirect would work either. Since as Buidhe says it would give the subject UNDUE weight in the target article. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (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.