Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic


 * 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. Wizardman 19:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic

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

Contested prod. This article was written solely to promote the college - the author openly admits it on the Talk page. Fails WP:SOAP by miles. There's also no evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjsmith (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. While the sources are patchy, I don't think there's any doubt this college exists; given that we work on the assumption that high schools are notable-unless-proven-otherwise, I'd certainly say the same should apply to higher education colleges. Since when is "conflict of interest" a deletion reason? – iride  scent  15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying COI is a deletion reason. I'm saying that this article was unquestionably written as a soapbox article, which is completely contrary to WP policy. The author admits it. Nor am I saying the college doesn't exist! andy (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Iridescent's cogent comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —andy (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —andy (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Iridescent. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Anybody fancy addressing the issue of WP:SOAP? The keep votes are because (a) it exists and (b) higher education colleges are usually notable. But the primary reason for nomination was (c) it smells strongly of soap, which is a WP policy. andy (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll address it... absoloutely right! This is clearly a violation of WP:SOAP.  However, I'd prefer to hold off on deletion until the end of the AfD to see if the article gets cleaned up and wikified.  It is a notable topic and can be a good article.  Yes, the author did start it for advertising--but if the author is a newbie, who cares?  Give the author a chance to say "Oh, that's how we do things here" and let other editors jump in to see if it can be saved.  But if that doesn't happen by the end of the AFD discussion, then Delete it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a very notable institution. I have done a bit of cleanup and citation of the article. - Icewedge (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2008 (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.