Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AP Business Principles

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AP Business Principles

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A mere self-published announcement of a job posting on Workday is not enough to justify the existence of an article dedicated to an AP course that does not yet exist in light of WP:N's notability requirements. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, no evidence of notability, would WP:G11 apply here? Justi yaya 07:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unambiguously promotional to me; it seems to be more likely that a clever person was snooping on job boards to find out that a course was being created and wanted to put it on Wikipedia, rather than using Wikipedia as a way to advertise the job posting (or the course). That being said, feel free to tag the article G11 if you feel that it's unambiguously promotional. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhawk10 Looking over the G11 criteria again, the NPOV requirements likely removes this option, thank you! Justi yaya 10:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: please also check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AP Human Anatomy and Physiology Principles, which is related to this nomination. In hindsight, I probably should have multi-AFD'd them because of similarity, but we're a bit past that point now. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL— rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my proposed deletion rationale, which should be visible in the page history. (Which basically distills down to WP:TOOSOON.) Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 01:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.