Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VanArts


 * 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The result was Keep as withdrawn as the user nominating is apparently no longer continuing the nomination and even the 1 Delete vote is by a rather new user with only a few contributions the last being from January thus they have also not clarified this bias including since the newest changes and events. Keep as this also seems satisfying for the applicable schools notability (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  07:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

VanArts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is written for nearly no other purpose than advertising. It does nothing but espouse positive aspects of the school and is clearly written with a promotional/marketing bias. It is written in length to the extent where it would appear credible to the untrained eye. Zero effort is made to attribute facts and statements to reliable sources, other than sources that are related to VanArts in some way. Cyanhat (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete:This article has a clear bias towards the school and is clearly an advertisement for the school and not an actual informative article. As such it should be deleted or drastically edited. Vituhlz (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Lack of sources or promotional tone are not valid reasons for deletion. Cited issues can be fixed by editing or stubifying. Accredited post-secondary schools are generally considered notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply Notability is not at question here. Article fulfills deletion policy per reason 4: "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)". I believe given the current state of the article and how intertwined uncited sources are within the article, it should be subject to WP:TNT at the minimum. If the article is stubbed or edited to the point where it is largely verifiable, I will change my position. However, I don't believe that is possible and it is better to start from scratch. Cyanhat (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, I beleive these issues can be delt with through editing and I have taken a cut at it. Please let me know what you think. You too . ~Kvng (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep after the removal of the promotional material by Mduvekot (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator - Article has been edited to an appropriate extent for significant reductions in promotional content. Will not be discussing further as I'm retiring as an editor. Cyanhat (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2016 (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.