Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of St. Martin

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 of the debate was Keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was tagged as a speedy from me as a ad/essay. Changed to prod, but prod tag was removed by User:USM. I believe the page should be deleted. Kept and rewritten. deleted and replaced with a non-copyvio article.Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak Keep. Article needs a lot of work - at the moment, it's basically just a prospectus for the college - but the institution itself is potentially notable, if appropriate references can be found. Tevildo 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Universities are always notable. TruthbringerToronto 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fix it not delete it. Universities are notable. --Bduke 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clean up. Jumbo Snails 02:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like a copyvio to me. ~ trialsanderrors 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then we should delete it, then create a new article.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 13:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the protocol, yes. But I'm not sold on the idea that all universities are notable. There's a lot of educruft out there. ~ trialsanderrors 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've already voted in favor of keeping the article. I made some further edits, and I think the article is now free of copyright problems. If someone could look at the article, fix the awkwardly-positioned photos, and make any further edits that seem appropriate, that would be good. TruthbringerToronto 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any info on accreditation, either in the article or on the school webpage. That's info that should be on there. Also, two of the images are not tagged, and the third one is tagged by User:USM. Not sure whether we can keep them under those conditions. ~ trialsanderrors 00:29, 23 June 2006 (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.