Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redeemer University


 * 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. JForget 22:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Redeemer University

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Usually I'm all for inclusion, but I think this is one of those cases where you just have to give up and start over. At first glance, it seems like it would be easy to fix; just get rid of the formatting errors, etc. But I started trying to edit it, and I gave it a good 15 minutes before I stopped pulling out my hair and headed over here. In some places, I have no idea what's being said. Most of this is a cut-and-paste job. The article is not properly named (it says Redeemer's University all through the article, and that's actually the correct way). I suspect a COI, but this article is the only activity the user's ever had on Wikipedia, so I can't tell for sure. You could throw up a notability flag here too, though I'm all for every school having an article. There's several weasel words, portions are like an advertisement, etc. None of these are reasons for deletion in themselves, but in combination they're disasterous. So, I'm nominating this for deletion. At the very least, I'm hoping someone will see this nomination and fix up the article themselves. Skittleys (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To add to my nomination...: I've read the appropriate notability criteria more thoroughly, and am now certain that it fails. I have used several search engines, and the results beyond its own website don't give any information about the institution itself. This also brings up WP:SOURCES. I also tried checking Google News, and found no results (note: you have to do this with "Redeemer's University" in quotes; otherwise, you get results for other universities of the same name). The WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY policies should also be noted. — Skittleys (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fix but keep. Yes, as Skittleys (the nominator, OK?) wrote it will be a tough job, but I don't see the point in deleting just to recreate. It could be adjusted (hopefully by the creator, who has a deeper knowledge of the topic) to make it an acceptable stub in order to build from there. McMarcoP (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - and tag for improvement. A Google news search for the correct name shows coverage although it is premium content. If the current content is irredeemable, it can be at least stubbed. -- Whpq (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - universities are deem d notable. Stub not deletion is the solution to this type, of content. TerriersFan (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2009 (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.