Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Acquisition University


 * 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 keep. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Defense Acquisition University

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)


 * 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)
 * 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. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment So this article is notable, but it should be deleted because of laziness? -- MurderByDeadcopy  "bang!"  07:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone arguing the subject is definitely notable. Please see WP:TNT to understand the comments in support of deletion. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep with the promotional material cut. The subject appears to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete - too promotional. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update - 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)
 * Keep: Looks good now. Ceosad (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Update - Good job, ! 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems similar to a lot of government education programs (Defense Information School for instance. JCO312 (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.