Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulaski Technical College


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Pulaski Technical College

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a small technical college, and under normal circumstances would be only borderline notable. As it is, there has been controversy at the college between students and administration, and this page has become hijacked to litigate that dispute and has been and will continue to be a nightmare to maintain as NPOV. We should therefore delete and salt this, as we all have better things to do than try to moderate a dispute that has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. The content not about that dispute is neglected and unsourced, btw. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep More than meets our standards for an article as an Arkansas state-funded (and HLC-accredited and NCA-licensed) college, especially one of the largest in the system, in the state capital city's county; we usually don't delete anything that has a known .edu address. "Because IPs and new accounts are bringing drama against the big, mean dean who fires people and the school can't get their funding straight" isn't a good reason to delete this article; I see no history at all of bringing any semi-protection to this article so the "Makeptcgreatagain"s and "Ptcterminator"s of the world just move on, get themselves blocked and let this just be a humdrum technical college article (though they've also seemed to take out some umbrage on Google Reviews, so these are endemic issues with the school). Semi-protection and blocks are appropriate here, not deletion. Sourcing could be improved (and it needs an update as it seems to now be in the University of Arkansas system; that makes the keep automatic), but it should be easy for that to be found seeing as the school is in the Little Rock area.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nate if you are going to !vote keep then you need to commit to spending your own time dealing with the ugly editing and behavior that is blatant in the history for long time now, and that produced the absolute dreck in the history section of this version of the article.  Are you going to do that? And I will note further that this diff series by you was yet more unsourced editing to this article, and does not inspire confidence that you could maintain the neutrality of this article, even if you did commit to trying.  Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, that's what semi-protection is for. I'm shocked that it was never asked for; the article should have ever neared that state of disarray. And the only ugly editing I'm seeing is from accounts that just needed blocks right away. Also, the school's name was changed (which it did on February 1st). Don't step on editors trying to improve the article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Editing unsourced content without citing any sources is not "improving" WP and is the kind of poor editing that has beset this page. (But this is much better, thanks!)  And page protection etc don't happen automatically. Again please don't !vote keep if you are not willing to do that work.  This does seem to part of the University of Arkansas system now, so perhaps this could be merged there -- that article has 59 watchers who could perhaps keep the malarky at bay (this one has "fewer than 30"). That would probably work....Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Right now I'm just getting things more in shape; we can worry about the history and body later, but the stats and lede need to be solidified at the very least.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 15 July 2017 (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.