Collat School of Business: The only sources on the articles are either primary, databases, or closely match the wording of a primary source .  PROD was removed without sufficient sourcing improvements.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 03:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Schools ,  and Alabama .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, I'm not opposed to sourcing improvements that would establish notability.  This AfD merely describes the state of the article when it was dePRODed.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 03:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - to the University.  Barring unique circumstances, the general consensus has always been that law schools and medical schools  get articles and other sub-schools get a redirect or nothing at all.  See SCHOOLOUTCOMES .  There is nothing here and nothing rising to the level of GNG that I could find to indicate this school is an exception to the general consensus.  If this article was about a  business rather than a business school, it would be an A7 CSD.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - to the main UAB page.  Sources used are primarily primary, and in digging, I was unable to pull any that meet WP: N .  Obviously, just because I wasn't able to find those those kinds of sources isn't definitive, however, I understand the preferred treatment, if warranted, is to build out a supporting UAB academics page.  The Academics section of the main UAB page would be the where the editor would want to start placing this information MertenMerten ( talk ) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I already added secondary sources.  It has met WP: N criteria.  Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.  Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 20:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I already added secondary sources.  Those sources are databases or closely match the wording of a primary source, none of which can be used to establish notability.  Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.  This is not a valid reason for why an article should be kept under WP: N .  It has met WP: N criteria.  You are free to baselessly claim, as the article's creator, that article meets notability guidelines.  In its current state, it does not.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are not baseless claims you haven't checked the secondary sources I added! .  Shortcut WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.  Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.  The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.  Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.  "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.  Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language.  Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.  Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you want to annoy and delete a school/colleges page, you better check UCLA's collleges and school, most of there references are directly linked to the institution, not a single secondary sources but you wanted to delete this page with sufficient secondary sources I added, and yet you are ignoring it.  Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your time is better served finding better sources instead of calling a volunteer annoying, branding them as ignorant, or demanding they read a page which has nothing to do with the AfD.  This AfD is about sourcing, so of the sources currently in the article diff : The Belanger article is WP: ROUTINE coverage of the renaming of the school.  The Watson article isn't reliable.  Who is this guy, and how do we know he didn't make up everything in the article?  The Lewis article was written by a high schooler and doesn't provide much information beyond that UAB's business program was ranked by the USNWR.  I'd argue that this coverage is routine, and even if it isn't, there isn't much to make an article with.  There's two sources that are databases and can't be used to establish notability.  Anyway, nothing in this AfD stops anyone from putting information about the business school on the main UAB page, so I'm kind of surprised that there's such an aggressive push to keep the article.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 18:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] that's why it's called a secondary source because it only addresses the topic not the main topic and my sources are reliable and somehow you degraded a high school writer and still a reliable source.  Your intentions are not really into the topic, you are trying to degrade my sources when in fact it is a criteria for nobility.  Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you still had doubts, I'll add as many secondary sources everyday until you get out of here.  Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and btw those are published articles that you are trying to belittle, and it means it has met the criteria for notability even if the writer is a high school, a farmer, or a homeless man.  Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 19:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: As nominator, I'm okay with a redirect to the main University of Alabama at Birmingham article as an AtD.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No need for redirect, I already added secondary sources.  Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: There is a rough consensus to Redirect this article but in light of the newly added sources, I'd appreciate some editors reviewing them before closing this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see any sources as of this diff that should swing the discussion.  Most of the secondary sources are (still) database entires, and those that aren't lack reliability.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:03, 20 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect