Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The DaVinci Institute

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. Nishkid64 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The DaVinci Institute

The DaVinci Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Non-notable institute/spam, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum Freud, part of a walled garden of articles by Dr2tom (talk · contribs)} and Beeblebrox666 (talk · contribs) supporting ventures by Thomas Frey. These include its redirect Davinci institute), Anthropometric Disaster Area, the now-deleted Maximum Freud, and, of course Thomas Frey. Only the very thinnest of references, either local press, press releases, or self-generated notices. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and I also call major WP:POV and possible WP:COI as well. --Dennisthe2 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Artw 00:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. I also smell POV somewhere in there... --Tohru Honda13^{Sign me!} 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete given prior afd for Maximum Freud & ongoing unverifiable Anthropometric... the walled garden should be gated. SkierRMH,09:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The DaVinci Institute seems notable. The article does need a rewrite, though. .V. (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as huge amounts of POV without any assertion of notability for the organization, although it does assert Frey's notability. Also copyvio from the Institute's website (although pronouns are changed...). --N Shar 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable unverified spam. — coelacan talk — 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I have followed the DaVinci Institute for some years, and they do good work, producing solid white papers, offering appropriate coursework for their purpose; however, I don't think that they are quite yet notable, much like a band with no hit records. --Bejnar 09:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, self-promotion. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A Ramachandran 20:00, 14 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.