Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Practical Philosophy

:{{la|School of Practical Philosophy}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Practical Philosophy}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|School of Practical Philosophy}})

Non notable org. Does not comply with inclusion guidelines WP:ORG no third party intellectualy independed sources dedicated to this topic. Wikid^as© 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to School of Economic Science and protect. It's a valid subtopic, so don't delete, but there isn't enough for an article. I redirected this article some time ago with the edit summary of "Eh, let's just redirect it. I did research about 6 months ago to try and write a neutral article, but all the sources are on the SES in general." I believe this still holds true: there is coverage of the School of Economic Science, but not its New York branch (that happens to have a different name). Similar to how a small religion might be notable, but not every small offshoot. If the article is decided to be kept, I would recommend starting with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_of_Practical_Philosophy&oldid=253479692 this revision] of the article as a stub.

:Also, Flewiki: I recognize that you are trying to improve the article in good faith, but references to other Wikipedia articles don't mean much, and no one questions that the School of Practical Philosophy talks about Plato. The problem is coverage of the SPP itself from places that aren't the SPP's own website, not coverage of Plato. SnowFire (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 10:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silverseren^C 10:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I have added new sources that establish notability. Silverseren^C 10:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Comment. Most of those sources seem to only mention the topic in passing. "The Philosophical Spirit: from Plato to Nussbaum" isn't talking about this organization at all. I'm not sure the Johannesburg group is the same School of Practical Philosophy, and even if it is, they rented a building, big whoop. Hugh Jackman took a course with them once - but not really evidence it was a defining part of Jackson's life, and he's not really known for importance in philosophical/religious/etc. matters anyway. We don't include articles on a church only known because a future president of the US visited it for 6 months, for example, even if the president praised the church. The Record Online article is on point, but also super-short and seems like a filler piece.

::Now, the one source that is relevant is the New York Times piece (which only came out 2 months ago which is why I missed it in 2008!). However, this was not a piece of reporting - this was the "City Critic" doing more a slice-of-life piece on something she personally did, the newspaper equivalent of a blog post. It's still a good source, but I'm not sure I'd want to pin the entire third-party notice of a topic on just this one article. And more to the point, I don't see why the School of Practical Philosophy can't be covered adequately in the School of Economic Science parent article. I think any content sourced to the NYT piece can surely be put into the SES article instead; a stand-alone SPP article would have perhaps 3 paragraphs, so no reason not to merge. SnowFire (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the School of Practical Philosophy is an independent organisation in its own right and not a branch of the School of Economic Science (SES). Thus, although appearing to share common aims, it could take independent initiatives, one example probably being the on-line courses. There is an obvious branch structure in the UK this all these being a single organisation; however, there are no legal/ownership links with organisations in other countries. Evidence for this can be found on the UK Charities Commission's website where the SES accounts and many other details are published.

Information on the Wikipedia page used to indicate that SPP was a branch of SES, but this has been corrected. Therefore I cannot see why the School of Practical Philosophy should be deleted or redirected to School of Economic Science. I support its continuation as a separate page, but also would encourage the efforts of those improving it. wikirpg (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

::Note --On it's own this educational insititution does not have intellectually independed sources or have been included on a list of any notable institution in education. The school has never received an award or a notable honor. SES may be notable, but this is an idependend school and thus should be accessed on it's own merit. The adverts and promotional reviews and pres-releases do not qualify as independent of the subject. Wikid^as© 14:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your point on the lack of independent sources. However, the remedy would best be to establish more sources, or else just waiting whilst those that are involved with it (pro, anti, or neutral) do so. Deleting an article on an independent charity just because it is poorly referenced would remove thousands of articles from Wikipedia. In my view this article should be neither deleted nor redirected.wikirpg (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

::I have to stress that notability is established by independent reliable sources. If notability is not established the only other solution I see is merging it into the SES article as a sub section. We can not compromise on the basis that other stuff exists - no notability means delete.Wikid^as© 23:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with SnowFire that the regional NYT piece alone is insufficient and I couldn't find any additional WP:RS coverage myself. — Rankiri (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep; the weird subway ads{{or}} alone give it much attention, and colleges are usually notable. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

:Question, is this a college? From what I can see they offer no degrees. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per Snowfire. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into School of Economic Science. Sources are weak but the content is salvageable. External links can take a hike. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The article has been expanded a good amount. Silverseren^C 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep If its published in a newspaper, it doesn't count as a blog. Just like a film or play that gets reviewed by someone is notable, so is this school. Dream Focus 06:06, 17 April 2010 (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.