Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of WCMA


 * 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 delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

University of WCMA, World christian ministries association

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Spammy, but perhaps less spammy than a previous version that was speedily deleted. A quick Google search suggests that there are no reliable in-depth sources about this institution, so it is not notable. Pan Dan 14:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction...this is not spammy...I too checked the sources and they meet or exceed all other similar wikipedia contributions...Pan Dan has a hx of tagging things he doesn't like...mere opinion...not looking out for wikipedia's need for valuable contributions that the public seeks.

Florenda 15:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability asserted with reliable, verifiable, and independent sources. Merely attacking the nominator does not help one's case for inclusion. DarkAudit 15:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Adding to the discussion. Appears to be affiliated with the University of WCMA (or vice versa), and same concerns re: spam and notability. Pan Dan 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Bringing in anything other than fact only adds to my point...unfounded opinon(s). Sure nobody likes it when you challenge their hasty choices and actions...but wikipedia wants and needs worthy contributions...not advertising or spam as you feel...a comparative contrast of all similar contributions are formatted, styled, sourced and worded almost exactly the same way. I've checked...why don't you tag all the others that are the same as this one?  Hmmmm...I thought so. And by the way DarkAudit, Pan Dan deleted the reliable, verifiable and independent sources and now they have to be researched again and added again.  Hmmm...some good wikipedia process. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.252.58.209 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Please note the difference between an article that should be deleted and an article that shouldn't. The key is: reliable sources that (1) discuss the subject of the article in depth, (2) are independent of the subject of the article, and (3) actually verify the content of the article. By the way I didn't delete any sources from the articles. I assume you are referring to the fact that the articles have been previously tagged by me and deleted by an administrator. Articles that are blatantly promotional may be deleted at any time per Wikipedia's guidelines on speedy deletion. This is because Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Pan Dan 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Is this even an actual accredited university? The article as written doesn't sound like it is, and "University of WCMA" gets just one Google hit... from Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As with the above, I find no evidence that any such institution exists. THe article itself is utter rubbish. Mangoe 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per WP:N. "Utter rubbish" is the mot juste here. The approach to sourcing in all these Daniel Briggs–related articles is very amusing, but unconvincing to say the least. Recreation after speedies suggest that these people are not going to give up. Deor 01:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I share Andrew's concern whether there is a university there is a university at all. Their web page is the first one for a university that I have ever seen that mentions no faculty--just "associates" and I notice from their "catalog": *University of World Christian Ministries Association if Authorized to Operate by Florida Department of Education’s State Board of Education" Read it slowly. DGG 03:59, 9 May 2007 (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.