Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heller center


 * 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. (Non admin closure). Qst 15:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Heller center

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is unreferenced and does not contain any links within Wikipedia. The information seems generally useful to know if you want to learn about the subject, but the formatting problems are very difficult to fix, and the tone is inconsistent with typical style on Wikipedia. A Google search did not reveal any evidence of a copyright violation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has news coverage, appears to be a significant part of a major university. The tone of the article can be corrected. I can't find evidence of copyvio. --- tqbf  23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The tone is wrong but editing can fix that. It appears to be a real place and a significant feature of the University of Colrado (In the yellow panel. . There appears to be news coverage. It's been copied from somewhere, perhaps AfC, but like tqbf, I find no evidence of copyvio. I favour keeping the article, working on it and making a decision later on notability. --Malcolmxl5 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per above --UnleashTheWolves 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article just needs work. :)  J ONATHAN  Go green ! 03:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - References not yet being in an article of a notable topic doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Add a "needs references" tag and clean it up.  --Oakshade 03:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not believe the writing has the remotest chance of being original. Ref 4 states: "Note copyright which allows use for private scholarship and by university presses engaging in non-commercial publication." -- which of course is not acceptable at Wikipedia. If notable, stubbfy. DGG (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: that copyright refers to an image, not the text. --- tqbf  04:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. and a comment to user:shalom: your complaints regarding the article should have instead been covered in a Cleanup notice, or in the act of cleaning it up yourself :) . Lack of references is not justification for deletion, nor is lack of wiki-links, nor is poor writing, poor formatting, poor tone, nor poor style. I say this with all due respect :) The amount of time it took to nominate this article for deletion is probably equal to the amount of time it would take to clean it up :) Kingturtle 01:21, 15 November 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.