Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMM Program
: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 redirect to Northwestern University. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
=[[MMM Program]]=
:{{la|MMM Program}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|MMM Program}})
Program within a university, with no real assertion of independent notability and entirely reliant on self-published sources. —Swpbtalk 23:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If no page is given for this program then the content will need to be repeated twice on both the McCormick School's Wikipedia page and the Kellogg School's Wikipedia page. The Kellogg School and McCormick School are also both programs within a university so by your logic they too should not have pages. The concern over "entirely reliant on self-published sources" has been addressed since this page was flagged for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrh25 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Northwestern University, where it's worth a one-sentence mention, maybe (otherwise redirect to Kellogg school, the only other place it's mentioned). This topic was never really a candidate for deletion because the redirect's usefulness was always apparent. There is no secondary coverage available in databases or news, and the only meaningful, secondary hits I found were in Princeton Review, which isn't so great for our uses. In the absence of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, redirect to parent article. czar ♔ 01:49, 7 October 2014 (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.