[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Siebel Scholars (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)
Insufficient referencing to demonstrate notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. CptViraj (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Organizations, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comments - First, there are several websites with text almost identical to this article, but I can't tell whether the WP article is WP:COPYVIO or a case of citogenesis: (1), (2), (3).
- The article needs to be revised to resolve the possible copyvio problem.
- Second, there are sources that could be used in an overhaul effort for this article:
- Third, there are multiple listings by college, annually, naming scholarship awardees at the various institutions, with descriptions of the award, which colud provide in depth, reliable sources to revise the article.
- Last, perhaps the best solution to the problem of potential copyvio might be to draftify this article, and rebuild it from secondary, reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- A copyvio is unlikely. Looking through the article's history, the current version developed slowly over time. Here is the copyvio comparison for your link no. 1. It's blatantly obvious (and also kinda funny) that they just copied text from Wikipedia and made some minor changes to disguise it ("29" -> "various", "selected" -> "chosen", "on the basis of" -> "based on"). The comparison tool doesn't work for the other two links, but they're dated so we can look at the latest revision before they were published. For both no. 2 and no. 3, the text was already there. So the copyright concerns are baseless and the article should definitely not be draftified. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: There is a list of potential sources here, though it seems they are all from universities involved with the programme. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)