Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The PhD Project

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The PhD Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable (in a Wikipedia sense) scholarship programme. I haven't been able to find enough good sources to use to support an article on this (string: "the phd project"), with this piece from the Christian Science Monitor being the best source I can find via a Google search. This article has had sourcing woes since before drafting was even a thing - it's been 15 years since it's been tagged for want of sources. I know I'm likely going to be insulted, called racist, etc. for filing this deletion debate, but at this point I can't find enough sources to actually bring this up to Wikipedia's standards. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Organizations, Education, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Christian Sci Monitor is ok, that's about all I can find for sourcing as well. The term is mentioned, but there are simply very few articles about them in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University websites or blogs, or the project's page itself, that's about all there is. Notable cause for sure, they just haven't had any media attention in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2023 (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.