Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European University (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Glass  Cobra  22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

European University
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I nominate this article for deletion because of its unencyclopedic content. It was previously proposed for deletion and the result was: keep. However only seven persons voted before this decision was taken. Seven votes are not representative of the opinion of the community. Thus it is worth reopening the debate. This article was initially written for self-promotion by the European University, as a form of an advertisement for its institution (WP:PROMO). But adding the information of non-accreditation does not change the fact that this topic does not merit its own article on Wikipedia. A topic needs sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline (WP: NOTE). Merely being true or useful (even verifiable) does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Readers use Wikipedia for encyclopedic information. Wikipedia is not a free advertising space (WP:SPAM), and not even a space to debate about the quality of a company and its products or services. The action of helping student to choose the “right” education is not in line with building an encyclopedia.Clooodel (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

/eNOTE: ''This AfD nomination was initiated by a new user, who did not follow correct procedure, and placed comments on the talk page of this page instead of here. I have attempted to place a correct version of what was intended here, but I cannot guarantee that I have done it entirely correctly.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBWatson (talk • contribs)


 * Speedy keep - not only is this nomination out of process for being renominated so soon, this is a SPA created for the purpose of this nomination so it is proving hard to AGF. TerriersFan (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, per TerriersFan; I'm just wondering which account to list as the puppetmaster at SPI... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - yes, not only has a 'new user' chosen to AfD as their first edit, unusual in itself, they have also sufficient knowledge to quote policy. There is at least enough of an indication to investigate whether this is a SPA sock created to keep a controversial nomination off a user's main account. TerriersFan (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there is coverage in reliable sources. An example of the ramifications of this body can be found in http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/09/13/evarist.html (and in two other Maltese papers). It seems to be fairly well-known in many areas. Note also that it is not the number of votes that counts, but the arguments used and the discussion in general. I didn't see the previous AfD, but seven is a reasonable number for AfD. Especially if they were unanimous. The nominator appears to be a single purpose account (so far - people do not often start a WP career with an AfD nomination...) Peridon (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hadn't seen the above before making my SPA remark... Peridon (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —TerriersFan (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep for poor procedure. Nom's reasons for a second AfD are reasons for deletion review, not reopening the AfD (I checked, there doesn't seem to have been a review of the first AfD).   RJC  TalkContribs 14:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Since European University is not registered as a university and registered has a company, it doesn't make it exempt under WP:UNIGUIDE. It will in this case not be considered as notable and we should thus delete this article.Quick07 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the above is the only contribution from another SPA. TerriersFan (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for procedural reasons (less than a month after the last AfD) and the substantive reasons given at the last AfD. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DeletePromo is not suitable on WP, in particular when info issued by institution itself. Made own bad experience for trust put in "reliable" advertisement on WP.Maaob28 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC) — Maaob28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I kind of agree with User:DGG's comments in the first discussion. Non-accreditation does not mean non-notability. Also, it's a pretty large school. However, there seems to be very little coverage in reliable sources. Private unaccredited higher education schools are not more notable than other schools of of this type (such as language schools (there is a huge number of those, most of them not notable at all.)) In the end, the only real arguments for "keep" seem to be that it's pretty large and it's higher education. This is not enough, and the article is likely to run into WP:POV problems in the future due to lack of third-party sources. Offliner (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the link in my post above - and the other Maltese papers - and see if notoriety comes in.... Peridon (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep which is what i said the first time. There's enough sourcing to verigy the content, and it's a common outcome that universities are notable. The distinction is that they award degrees, unlike language training institutes and the like.    DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of the users saying "delete", Offliner is the only one worth taking seriously. The other 3 (including the nomination as one) are all SPAs which have made no edits not related to this AfD, and they all use arguments which lack logic. For example Clooodel says "Wikipedia is not a free advertising space": true, but irrelevant, since nobody could read the article in its present state as an advertisement. Yes, it was originally written as an advertisement, but that is not relevant: what is relevant is the article proposed for deletion, that is to say the present article, not a past version of it. Maaob28 likewise says "Promo is not suitable on WP, in particular when info issued by institution itself", and the same response applies even more strongly, as this is the only argument advanced by Maaob28. Of course I can't be sure, but my guess is that these are all sockpuppets or possibly meatpuppets working on behalf of the "European University". I came to that conclusion before I discovered that there is a confirmed history of sockpuppets working to suppress information unfavourable to the EU and insert favourable information.
 * Offliner, on the other hand, does make a reasonable argument for deletion. Offliner says that there seems to be very little coverage in reliable sources. It is certainly difficult to find any, but that is partly because the sequence of words "the", "european", "university" occurs so frequently in other contexts that search hits for this institution get lost among irrelevant ones. Nevertheless with diligent searching it is possible to find a number of examples of reliable independent coverage, and some of the coverage is quite substantial enough to justify notability. For example this Malta Star article is, I think, quite significant enough, and can be supplemented by other briefer mentions in various places. Yes, I would like more, but I think there is enough coverage to justify keeping the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. I'm adding to the pile-on only to create a stronger consensus, which was the nominator's issue with the last AfD.  Them From  Space  04:58, 29 September 2009 (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.