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.
Advert (with possible copyvios per the other articles) needing a decision to move to draft space before it is deleted out of frustration with promo articles with (almost) exclusive use of primary sources. Nomming to gather wider opinion with suggestion to move to Draft. Widefox;
talk 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. This can possibly be stubbified, but is best started over like the others. I would absolutely not move it to draft space--anyone wanting to use it could do just as well using the website for the basic information, and the no need to preserve the fluff. DGG (
talk ) 05:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - it may be notable but it was so clearly written by someone looking to promote the "university" that this needs to be TNT'd. It would take longer to fix it than it would to just rewrite.
—МандичкаYO 😜 06:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment So this article is notable, but it should be deleted because of laziness? --
MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 07:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't see anyone arguing the subject is definitely notable. Please see
WP:TNT to understand the comments in support of deletion.
—МандичкаYO 😜 08:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, I suppose giving it a "WP" identity classes it up a tad, however, I fail to see a difference in its eventual outcome. --
MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 17:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Noms comment Hmm, after seeing comments, to clarify this is
WP:TNT. Even
WP:BATHWATER has Spam/Blatant advertising as delete. If my suggested draft-ify compromise isn't useful, then second choice is delete. Widefox;
talk 09:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, but stubbify. Subject is probably notable, but borderline TNT candidate. I am willing to do the pruning, if there is support for this approach.--Mojo Hand(
talk) 15:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Mojo Hand, have time to do this nowish? to ward off outcome of closed no-consensus, and no action. Have to say, well done to volunteer, although I'm against the principle per
WP:BOGOF. Widefox;
talk 16:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes. I wanted to see if there was support for that approach before I committed time to it. I'm also not a big fan of BOGOF, but this article is in my general area of interest.--Mojo Hand(
talk) 16:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep with the promotional material cut. The subject appears to be notable. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep after pruning. I'll slim down the use of buzzwords which annoy me most. Thank you, nominator, for bringing this to general attention. --
econterms (
talk) 16:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Update -
Econterms and I have worked on the article and heavily pruned the jargon and promotional material. It still needs work (including more 3rd party sources), but I hope it's past the
WP:TNT stage.--Mojo Hand(
talk) 16:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Looks good now.
Ceosad (
talk) 23:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Update - Good job,
Mojo Hand! The article's in decent shape now. The subject is notable: a surprisingly large, unique government institution with >100K past students. --
econterms (
talk) 15:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - although at present it appears to fail
WP:GNG, as it lacks evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. If that can't be found, I would support merging to DoD article.
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump) 20:48, 12 November 2015 (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.
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.
Advert (with possible copyvios per the other articles) needing a decision to move to draft space before it is deleted out of frustration with promo articles with (almost) exclusive use of primary sources. Nomming to gather wider opinion with suggestion to move to Draft. Widefox;
talk 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. This can possibly be stubbified, but is best started over like the others. I would absolutely not move it to draft space--anyone wanting to use it could do just as well using the website for the basic information, and the no need to preserve the fluff. DGG (
talk ) 05:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - it may be notable but it was so clearly written by someone looking to promote the "university" that this needs to be TNT'd. It would take longer to fix it than it would to just rewrite.
—МандичкаYO 😜 06:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment So this article is notable, but it should be deleted because of laziness? --
MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 07:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't see anyone arguing the subject is definitely notable. Please see
WP:TNT to understand the comments in support of deletion.
—МандичкаYO 😜 08:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, I suppose giving it a "WP" identity classes it up a tad, however, I fail to see a difference in its eventual outcome. --
MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 17:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Noms comment Hmm, after seeing comments, to clarify this is
WP:TNT. Even
WP:BATHWATER has Spam/Blatant advertising as delete. If my suggested draft-ify compromise isn't useful, then second choice is delete. Widefox;
talk 09:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, but stubbify. Subject is probably notable, but borderline TNT candidate. I am willing to do the pruning, if there is support for this approach.--Mojo Hand(
talk) 15:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Mojo Hand, have time to do this nowish? to ward off outcome of closed no-consensus, and no action. Have to say, well done to volunteer, although I'm against the principle per
WP:BOGOF. Widefox;
talk 16:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes. I wanted to see if there was support for that approach before I committed time to it. I'm also not a big fan of BOGOF, but this article is in my general area of interest.--Mojo Hand(
talk) 16:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep with the promotional material cut. The subject appears to be notable. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep after pruning. I'll slim down the use of buzzwords which annoy me most. Thank you, nominator, for bringing this to general attention. --
econterms (
talk) 16:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Update -
Econterms and I have worked on the article and heavily pruned the jargon and promotional material. It still needs work (including more 3rd party sources), but I hope it's past the
WP:TNT stage.--Mojo Hand(
talk) 16:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Looks good now.
Ceosad (
talk) 23:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Update - Good job,
Mojo Hand! The article's in decent shape now. The subject is notable: a surprisingly large, unique government institution with >100K past students. --
econterms (
talk) 15:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - although at present it appears to fail
WP:GNG, as it lacks evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. If that can't be found, I would support merging to DoD article.
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump) 20:48, 12 November 2015 (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.