Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copenhagen Free University

From 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The result was nom withdrawn based on the substantial rewrite. Closed by the nominator. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm being given too much credit. I didn't rewrite anything. I just added a few paragraphs. Note, by the way, that the book didn't exist at the time of the last deletion discussion. Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copenhagen Free University

Copenhagen Free University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Self-established self-proclaimed "university" in Copenhagen. Not only is this not an institution of learning on any level, it is also utterly non-notable. So, delete per no assertion of notability as well as general lack of reliable sources. I guess I could have nominated for speedy but this has been here for 4 years with no improvement of any significance. There is apparently an old VfD which I have been unable to locate. Hence this AfD rather than speedy as I do not know what happened at that VfD and nominating articles for speedy after they have been kept per VfD/AfD is a bad habit. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Addendum The VfD is here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on the rewrite I withdraw the nomination EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not being a real university doesn't stop it having a page here as long as it is notable. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case. Alberon (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. No, it is not a university, it is an art collective, and there is no deception on that point (other than some probably good-faith miscategorization). Properly referenced to two independently published books. What exactly is the claim of non-notability here? You're going to have to engage those sources directly to reach me. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My apologies -- those were added post-AFD by Uncle G. --Dhartung | Talk 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment No problem. The current version is significantly better than the one I nominated. The version I nominated is here and did not contain the same sources. Based on the rewrite I withdraw the nom. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:36, 12 December 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.