Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philadelphia University (Jordan)


 * 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. Some concern regarding conflict of interests and copyright, but agreement that there are versions which are not problematic, and that cleanup is the answer rather than deletion. WilliamH (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Philadelphia University (Jordan)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A large amount of the text is copyvio from the university's web site: I didn't search for the last few sections and it might be possible to save a few sections, but most parts of the article have to go away. Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources not independent so notability not established. Plus conflict of interest "here at Philadelphia Faculty of Nursing, we are privileged to work...". plus blatant WP:COPYVIO which could be a G12 speedy. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I just checked the history. This revision seems to be the last one without any copyvio at all. After that, the library section was added, but it might be the only copyvio until User:Philadelphia jordan started editing the article in December 2011. It might be possible to just delete a few recent revisions. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment We would still have "it considered one of the best universities in Jordan" unsourced in lead. But really this should be a notable institution. If you strip out all the unsuitable material and leave a stub, that would be a step in the right direction. Hopefully someone will pay attention to what's happening here and do the whole thing properly.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The university exists and is presumptively notable, but all of the copyright-violating content has to go. I have already removed two sections' worth of material taken directly from the university web site. Wikipedia needs to take a third-party, neutral point of view toward the subject, not copy material from the subject's web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - but cleanup per Metropolitan90.Babakathy (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment at [] User:Philadelphia jordan claims to also own the official web site, suggesting that permission to grant the cc license and that material is not a copyvio. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's true, there's no copyvio, but there's still the conflict of interest problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, much needs to be deleted, but I cannot believe that people do not consider that a university with over 5,000 students is a viable topic for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that the university is notable, but I found an article with a lot of copyright violations and thought that I had to report it somewhere. Maybe it would have been better to report it somewhere else, though I'm not sure where. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You do know that stubs are perfectly acceptable? Just cut it down to a couple of sentences and it's a perfectly acceptable stub article. I've seen too many nominations of articles recently that just don't seem to acknowledge this glaringly obvious possibility. If it's a clearly notable subject then it doesn't need to be completely deleted just because it contains a load of rubbish or a copyvio. No need to even take it to AfD. Just cut it yourself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. We can have an article on this topic, but what we have now is worse than having nothing.  Given the substantial copyvios and the obvious COI shown above, the prose text is not safe to keep.  Combine that with the fact that the rest of the article needs to be chopped (it's mostly lists of departments) and you're left with nothing that belongs here.  When an article's current contents are trash and there's absolutely nothing that will be useful to a future rewriter, there is no benefit to keeping it, and when some of that trash is downright harmful, we benefit substantially by getting rid of it.  Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you agree that the subject is notable but want to delete the article in order to clean it up? Saying "there's absolutely nothing that will be useful" seems extreme and, indeed, not quite correct.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. As shown above there are versions of this article in its history that don't violate copyright, so, if the recent clean up hasn't already fixed the issue, we can simply revert to one of those versions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2012 (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.