Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Audio Visual Institute

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Audio Visual Institute

Pacific Audio Visual Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Self-promotion. More of a brochure than an encyclopedia article. adavidw 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as copyvio and per CSD G11. The entire advertisement article is lifted from the company's website (with unsigned unverified assertion of permission to copy on the article's talk page). Agent 86 23:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete If the permission to copy is bogus and this should be speedied as a copyvio. But what if we found out that the institute somehow gave permission to release their brochure under GDFL? Well then it would be a blatant advert, speediable under G11. Pascal.Tesson 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - most of the article text has been removed now, meaning it probably doesn't qualify as a copyvio. It still may fail some test of notability, although I have no idea how to judge notability for a trade school. I'm considering withdrawing my nomination unless someone else wants to take up the issue of notability or finds something else wrong. --adavidw 05:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I would still weak delete, as there is no indication this corporate enterprise meets WP:CORP. While removing all the copyvio stuff helps, the stub still seems to be advertising the services of this company rather than being an encyclopedic article about it (but not so much so that I'd say CSD G11 anymore). Agent 86 15:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The article says the school is accredited, though I can't find confirmation of this on their web site, and although it appears on school directories, I don't see much non-trivial media coverage. I'd normally say colleges are notable by default, but dubious accreditation and lack of external review makes it seem really iffy. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Colleges are notable by default - respectfully disagree. Every entity is subject to WP:N. Luke! 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails to establish notability through WP:V. Luke! 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. WMMartin 15:32, 26 January 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.