Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graduate of the Year (UK)

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. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graduate of the Year (UK)

Successful, ambitious students. Eugh. Desmond22 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The most recent winner of the prize was nominated for deletion a few weeks ago and resulted in deletion Metros232 11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Also worth noting, the nominator of this AfD only has 3 contributions: tagging the article, creating this discussion page, and adding it to the main page. Metros232 11:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• While we're going down that path, the creator of the article, GOY2006 (talk · contribs), created this article and voted in the above AfD - and nothing else. So the sound you hear as you read the article is apparently that of a barrow being pushed. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• For all we know, Desmond22 has been making valuable contributions for some time anonymously. The fact that a nominator is a new user is merely the natural outcome of the restriction of page creation to logged-in users. — Haeleth Talk 15:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Question: what policies does this article contravene? WP:Eugh doesn't exist yet! --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 13:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as apparent vanity, the importance of this competition being unstated. 118 ghits for PWC "Graduate of the Year", of which some at least are unrelated. WP:NOT a soapbox, a mechansim for self-promotion or an indiscriminate collection of information. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - That is because not all articles refer to "PwC" with the award. Some mention "PricewaterhouseCoopers", some just "Real World", some "Moloney Search", and many don't mention the sponsors but just "Graduate of the Year". The number of pages that refer to this award in some form or another exceeds 500. GOY2006 14:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems legitimate but could do with a toneing down and a bit more substance. Benjaminstewart05 13:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I wrote this article and have no direct affiliation with the award or the winners. This is by far the most nationally recognised award for university students/graduates in the United Kingdom, and winners have been in the main UK mainstream press - including BBC, The Guardian, The Independent etc, as well as front page on big university sites like ox.ac.uk etc. Some of those mentioned have several hundred hits to their name. Also, Desmond's reasons for deletion of this article are invalid. GOY2006 14:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, not OR, not obnoxiously POV. We have plenty of US-centric universitycruft that will never be deleted; it's nice to see the odd article that recognises that academic life is not entirely based around random combinations of three Greek letters. — Haeleth Talk 15:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No coherent reason given for deletion. Not a brilliant article, but low quality is not a valid reason for deletion. Cadr 20:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I hate successful people too; sadly though there are too many of them to delete. Badgerpatrol 22:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Throw a cleanup tag on there if you'd like.--Marysunshine 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Marysunshine. Gwernol 03:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Legitimate, encylopædic record of notable event in British University life. Tone & language are NPOV & references bare witness to the validity of the article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as absurdly depressing. Oh, ok, keep it, whatever. Hornplease 12:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:EUGH. Err... keep. BHG has a point. AnonEMouse

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.