Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Maria Remarque Institute


 * 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.  Singu larity  09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Erich Maria Remarque Institute

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails organization notability guidelines by providing no secondary sources which have significant coverage. No reliable sources appear to exist elsewhere. This is just another unremarkable institute at another university.  Noetic  Sage  01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. &mdash; Noetic  Sage  01:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom it fails WP:ORG with no evidence of notability in doing some quick web searching. Collectonian (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and my own web searching. Possibly redirect to Tony Judt?  From my web search, seems like he's more notable than the institute, and he's basically the only thing ever talked about when the institute is mentioned.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Trivial RS coverage and ghits don't assert notability. I'd have liked it to, since I'm aware of it and I'm sure it does good work, but it doesn't seem notable TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom and above  Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep copious and diverse ghits, active Institute (seminars etc.); news hits are indeed less than expected, , , , . JJL (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although most institutes at universities have hits like these, they do not substantially cover the organization, as is required by the organization notability guidelines. Instead they cover topics presented by the Institute, a member of the Institute, or briefly mention the Institute. This is not good enough.— Noetic  Sage  03:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. archanamiya  ·  talk  23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  03:01, 4 April 2008 (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.