Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISG Luxury Management

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. ✗plicit 12:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISG Luxury Management

[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)

Does not seem suitably notable for a standalone article. This could be a section under ISG Business School, with this being a redirect, if looking for a halfway measure. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ISG Business School as WP:ATD. No evidence of notability separate form the parent organization. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of multiple, reliable, in-depth, secondary references and WP:PROMO. As to the suggestion of merging, IMO that is only a good option when there is adequately referenced content to merge and it will improve the target article. Neither is the case here though. So I don't think it's worth merging. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 5 February 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.