Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Educational Advancement

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Institute for Educational Advancement}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Institute for Educational Advancement}})

Non-notable organization that sponsors scholarships. None of the sources in the article supports WP:NCORP, nor does anything in my WP:BEFORE search except for possibly [https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/public-attitudes-toward-gifted-education-supportive-complacent-incomplete this expert blog post]. Everything else is press releases, trivial mentions, affiliated sources but nothing else that passes the NCORP threshold. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as creator; modestly notable scholarship is what the org is known for. Perhaps only needs to be one article about both; I merged the article on the scholarship into the one for the institute (though I could see it going the other direction). – SJ + 16:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• : Can you share which sources meet GNG for the scholarship? Every source you've added in the merged text is affiliated with the Institute or is a primary source. I still don't see WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• : The two full-ride scholarships are well known in high school + gifted ed circles because there aren't any others like it; I'll look again for an external review of what exists -- it's mostly catalogs with limited discussion. There does seem to be less written about programs and scholarships for younger children. Summer camps get more visibility; and I think the founder came out of CTY, added a bit of context there. – SJ + 19:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. 3/4 of the page is promoting the foundation, without significant coverage in three or more independent, secondary sources, and using words that are subjective and impart no verifiable information. When I taught at a junior college, every student in their second or third semester was required to take a class on critical thinking, which included a module on distinguishing between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Students in my paralegal program also had to take a second course on how that applies to legal research. The other 1/4 of the page veers off into a discussion about a different foundation with a similar mission, but one entity's notability doesn't confer the same on a different entity. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as per Bearian's arguments. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.