Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Neurosciences Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)


 * 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. Essentially a speedy G11, and not remotely likely to be notable.  DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Department of Neurosciences Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

bad penny. I had it deleted per WP:CSD just two days ago, and it's back. The article is unsourced, and highly promotional. I'd be prepared to wager that the reinstated text is an exact copy of the deleted – though I'm not an admin, so I can't prove it. The article is still full of the peacock words and its tone remains unabashed and disgracefully promotional, even compared to the subject's website. All in all, the article is beyond redemption and should be deleted. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, too far gone for keeping. University departments aren't normally notable, anyway.  Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin, and yes it is copied from the deleted version. Note the result of copying the table of contents: the present version of the article starts out with:

1 History 2 Mission & vision 3 Research 4 Press Quotes in the early years of establishment 5 References 6 External links [edit] History
 * Easy to see that this is a crudely-done copy and paste. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obvious repost of a deleted page, per Nyttend. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment has clearly indicated that (s)he is in a conflict of interest situation, and his/her intention to use WP to promote this establishment.   Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 10:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * and suspected Sockpuppetry... -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:37, 3 September 2010 (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.