Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moscow University for the Humanities


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Moscow University for the Humanities

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced. Artem Karimov (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - accredited institution with 10,000 students and associations with notable academics. The article needs some third-party sources, but I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't appropriate Russian sources around. --Anthem of joy (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue.  D r e a m Focus  06:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Unsourced is not a valid reason to delete something. The primary source is not in doubt for the information.  Notability is determined by common sense.  The official website states: The University features six faculties with a total number of more than 10,000 students.  Common sense is that if they have more than 10,000 students, than the university is notable.   D r e a m Focus  19:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Degree-granting institution in Moscow for six decades. As near as I can tell by our standard practice regarding such matters, IT EXISTS, therefore it is in. This is yet another in a series of AfD challenges that made by editors who are apparently not cognizant of STUFF TO CONSIDER BEFORE LAUNCHING AN AfD NOMINATION. Tag it for sources if there are none; as long as it is not a Biography of a LIving Person, which this is not, there is no sense in rushing an article like this off to the abattoir. Carrite (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - invalid grounds for nomination. I note that the nominator is based in Moscow so presumably he knows the institution which makes the nomination puzzling. TerriersFan (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably yes, actually no. This university is unknown to the general public. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a relevant standard. Most of wikipedia is content unknown to the general public, but knowable through sources.--Milowent • talkblp-r  15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But Artem, does it exist? I believe it does from some quick looking.  If it exists, it merits an article.--Milowent • talkblp-r  18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Artem's primary problem is that he thinks the article has too much puffery, which it probably does. but that's not a reason to delete.  It seems to be a lesser-known university, and though it traces its history back to 1944, really did not become a university until around 1992. (p.s. -artem, you gotta tell me what THIS is  !--Milowent • talkblp-r  18:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In-house\Fan\Bollywood\whatever video production does not necesserily qualify as a reliable source. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would emphatically say its not a reliable source. I do see students standing around the campus and such, and apparently bad mouthing it.  There's no question about whether the university exist, I've added sourcing that proves it.--Milowent • talkblp-r  20:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say that it does not exist. What I said was that the university is unknown to general public. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I cannot see any reason for deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: the vast bulk of the article turned out to be WP:COPYVIO of the topic's own website (and has been since its creation). WP:ITEXISTS is a poor reason for retention. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All copyright violations are gone now. And it exist as a major university is a very good reason for retention.   D r e a m Focus  10:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And what remains is an unsourced stub that fails to establish notability. I would note that you blindly !voted to keep this BLATANT WP:COPYVIO, whose WP:ADVERT tone should have given you a clue as to its origin. Why then should we accept your equally-blind claim that it's "a major university", lacking any substantiation? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously its official website is the source of the information, I adding in references to show that, although that should be common sense. They have 10,000 students at a time, then yes, its a major university.   D r e a m Focus  11:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And equally obviously, this material is (i) in violation of WP:SELFPUB "the article is not based primarily on such sources", and does not add ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What proves its notability is the fact that it is an educational facility with a large number of students. By rule of common sense, that's all that is needed.   D r e a m Focus  11:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it could just as easily be a diploma mill with little or nothing more than its website. What you term "common sense" I term a continuation of the gullibility you have already exhibited over this article. This sort of issue is why Wikipedia demands third party sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a de facto rule that every verifiable high school may have an independent article. The idea that a verifiable university would be deleted is unthinkable in the annals of wikipedia.  I have found discussion in russian news articles that verify the existence of the institution.  A few deal with a homicide that occurred there a few years ago so I chose not to cite it.  There's no basis to claim that its a diploma mill.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  11:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And we have a de jure rule: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V) Hence my demand for third-party sourcing. And I did not claim that the university was a diploma mill -- merely that Dream Focus' " common sense " naive acceptance of the website at face value had not ruled out the possibility. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you will learn to use Google someday to help improve articles, padawan.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 12:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you think I identified the WP:COPVIO that you an your fellow ARS buddies all missed, grasshopper? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * lol. but you must use your powers for good, for good.  i shall now add "third-party sourcing", though not in response to your "demand".--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  12:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to self: removing WP:COPYVIO≠"for good" in ARS lexicon. Good to know for the future. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * keep all verifiable universities are notable, and their web sites are reliable for the routine facts about them. Millicent has added external sources, which anyone could of course have added earlier--including Hrafn.  DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 22 May 2011 (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.