Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cologne Business School
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. postdlf (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cologne Business School
- Cologne Business School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In my opinion this article is one big advertisement, written by the school itself in order to get more students. Especially the lead is quite promotional telling you what is possible and can be reached. The Banner talk 19:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't quite work out whether this is part of Cologne University or an independent institution. If the latter, then as a degree-awarding institution it should be kept. If the former then there is more of a case for deletion as being only a department of a larger institution. Can anyone clarify? However, as ever, being badly written is not a good reason for deletion. It's a reason for cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Changing my opinion to keep given Userkriskj24's comment below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not about being written poorly, it is about being an advertisement and the recommended use of some WP:TNT. The Banner talk 11:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No need. If the subject is notable then just cut out the advertising and leave what's left. Destruction is unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you are left with the title, the location, the infobox and a frustrated spammer who will start edit warring over it... The Banner talk 14:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really a problem. If the spammer gets going then we can protect. After all, nobody deletes the article on Hitler because of the endless vandalism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But at the same time nobody is keeping that articles because H. is a mass murderer, while every school is kept because it is a school. And there is no policy for that... The Banner talk 16:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a general consensus... -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a strictly and harshly enforced opinion of a vocal minority misusing Common Outcomes as a policy. The Banner talk 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposed by an even more vocal and even smaller minority, however! Everything on Wikipedia is obviously going to be done by a minority, as only interested parties contribute to discussions. Consensus across every single editor is obviously never going to exist. Consensus can only possibly exist within the small minority who take part in discussions, and within that minority a consensus clearly does exist. It doesn't matter how much you complain that it's unfair, you are still among the minority within the minority who take part in such discussions. Claiming misuse is frankly an insult to the editors who support the consensus, many of whom are highly experienced, and indicates nothing more than a sense of bitterness that you are in the minority. A "yes, I know I'm in the minority, but you're still wrong and I'm right and therefore your opinions should be ignored" attitude that goes against the non-bureaucratic, "rules"-free and discussion-based spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hammering everybody who has a different opinion and every time when speaking out, is also not very civil. That is chasing away people to get it your way. The Banner talk 12:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody here is hammering anyone who has a different opinion. I am just expressing my opinion, as do others who agree that all secondary and tertiary school articles should be kept. Why would that be chasing people away? It's not like we're forcing anything through. We just happen to be in the majority of those who comment on AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hammering everybody who has a different opinion and every time when speaking out, is also not very civil. That is chasing away people to get it your way. The Banner talk 12:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposed by an even more vocal and even smaller minority, however! Everything on Wikipedia is obviously going to be done by a minority, as only interested parties contribute to discussions. Consensus across every single editor is obviously never going to exist. Consensus can only possibly exist within the small minority who take part in discussions, and within that minority a consensus clearly does exist. It doesn't matter how much you complain that it's unfair, you are still among the minority within the minority who take part in such discussions. Claiming misuse is frankly an insult to the editors who support the consensus, many of whom are highly experienced, and indicates nothing more than a sense of bitterness that you are in the minority. A "yes, I know I'm in the minority, but you're still wrong and I'm right and therefore your opinions should be ignored" attitude that goes against the non-bureaucratic, "rules"-free and discussion-based spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a strictly and harshly enforced opinion of a vocal minority misusing Common Outcomes as a policy. The Banner talk 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a general consensus... -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But at the same time nobody is keeping that articles because H. is a mass murderer, while every school is kept because it is a school. And there is no policy for that... The Banner talk 16:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really a problem. If the spammer gets going then we can protect. After all, nobody deletes the article on Hitler because of the endless vandalism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you are left with the title, the location, the infobox and a frustrated spammer who will start edit warring over it... The Banner talk 14:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No need. If the subject is notable then just cut out the advertising and leave what's left. Destruction is unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi i can clarify: Cologne Business School is a independent organisation. It has nothing to do with Cologne University. I made it myself as a information article since it is repressented in wiki in German but not English.(Userkriskj24) 13:05, 20 June 2013
- It is not about being written poorly, it is about being an advertisement and the recommended use of some WP:TNT. The Banner talk 11:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deleteas a copyvio. The current version copies material from [1], and prior to that, material was copied from [2]. The topic is very probably notable, but a copyvio is not the base to build upon. -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Neutral for now, but as a recognized degree granting institution, I lean towards keep. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad people, didnt know the way to put together a article, my first time. I hope everybody is still alive and i have learned after reading wiki instruction more how to create an article. Sorry for the inconveniance, veil spass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.31.84 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now, but as a recognized degree granting institution, I lean towards keep. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In its present cast there is nothing promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.