Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies


 * 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. WaltonOne 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No genuine assertion of notability, shoddily referenced, and above all, egregiously POV. Created by one User:Hauenstein, who has exactly two contributions, both to this article. Biruitorul 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Update: User:Alansohn has made substantial edits to the version I nominated, and gone a long way to address my NPOV concerns, though WP:RS and WP:N remain potential issues. Biruitorul 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a well-sourced article that describes a program making explicit claims of notability. While it may have been created by an individual with a connection to the institution, the article has been edited multiple times by about ten other editors since its creation and stands on its own regardless of the insinuated taint of its original creation. Where is this POV described in the nomination? Alansohn 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters: "generous contribution" (of Hauenstein, of course); peacock POV quotes like "a unique perspective... an amazing network"; "one of the American leaders in presidential studies"; "provides insight"; "the most incisive news and commentary"; "wasted no time getting started"; "a dizzying 11 public programs"; plus use of the first person: "We sponsor...". Would you like more? This is advertising, plain and simple. Biruitorul 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the institution non-notable or do you have content issues? Every single one of the issues you've raised (and more) could be address in seconds if you have a genuine interest in resolving the issue, rather than using the nuclear option of destroying the article because there are extremely minor issues. Did you make any edits to the article to address your concerns, and more importantly, did you place any POV tags or make any constructive comments on the article's talk page. Using AfD in lieu of making any effort to cleanup the article -- or have anyone else clean it up to your satisfaction -- is utterly counterproductive. Alansohn 22:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lack of NPOV and RS are not "extremely minor issues" - check WP:TRI if you don't believe me. I see you have made significant edits, and I commend those. Sourcing for the body of the text and an assertion of notability would be nice, but there is a real chance of me changing my vote. However, I will wait for what others may have to say on the issue. Biruitorul 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I think that Biru has a point. Although I think that a good article about the Hauenstein Center could be written, some intern has cobbled this one together from press releases.  If it's deleted, it can come back without the POV-laden literary flourish.  If the article can get rewritten (and warning to the author, every one here on Wikipedia has the right to edit "your creation") to look like an encylopedia article instead of a tourist brochure, I'd change my vote to keep.  I would wager that Mr. Hauerstein and the Grand Valley State faculty would agree that this article needs to be reworded for the good of mankind. Mandsford 21:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said - I have no prejudice against recreation, provided NPOV and RS. Biruitorul 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I doubt a good article showing notability could be written--a minor research center at a minor sate university. But if someone wants to try, fine with me. The present one is a rehash of various elements in the web site. DGG (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - the article is much improved after User:Alansohn's edits, though I still doubt the notability of the center. There are no sources cited from the scholastic worlds of presidential history or political affairs that would truly demonstrate notability. --Darkwind (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2007 (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.