Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Dreams

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. east.718 at 20:40, 11/15/2007

[edit] University of Dreams

University of Dreams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is basically an advertisement for an internship program. It doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Robbie098 02:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep suspect WP:COI and some advertising issues, but there does seem to be something there nonetheless. Borderline at best. JJL 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep It does look like an advert, but it has potential to be made into an article, and appears to be sufficiently notable. - Snigbrook 03:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I tried a rewrite to address concerns here. WP:CORP doesn't really seem to be satisfied. Independent mention of the company is pretty fleeting, nothing is an in-depth look at UOD. Press reports are (fairly poor) pieces on the new phenomenon of paying to get an internship. And the Inc. 5000 listing is hardly a rigorous ranking. The company does exist and this seems to be a growing field so there's a very weak argument to keep but I'm not convinced and given the apparent COI issues it will likely require editor attention just to keep it from becoming an advert again. Let's write the article when the company actually meets WP:CORP and there is something to say about them.-- SiobhanHansa 10:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per SiobhanHansa. Stifle (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails first criterion of WP:CORP; of 1st 100 Ghits, only a couple are non-promo and even they seem to be thinly-disguised publicity. It can come back later. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per SiobhanHansa. And if there is a new field of activity it may be better to write an article about that and mention if appropriate this company. --Tikiwont 09:43, 15 November 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.