Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwantlen Polytechnic University

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 keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kwantlen Polytechnic University[edit]

This minor college or university certainly exists in Canada, but it is not located in Vancouver or Burnaby where all the major Universities are to be found. The article here on this educational institution has become a battleground between editors who employ tags questioning its neutrality, inferior quality and suggesting that it uses 'weasel words.' I don't think the administrators who run this college would appreciate this Wikipedia page on them and neither would I. A high school graduate would think twice before enrolling here with this web page. I suggest it either be improved in the next 5 days or be nuked. (so that someone else can rewrite it in a more appropriate WP:NPOV.) I lean toward the latter solution sadly. Artene50 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as these aren't valid reasons for a nomination, let alone a deletion. Dalejenkins | 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is a joke right? Whether or not a university is 'minor' is not up to you to determine and Wikipedia is not a show-casing for administrators or potential students. These are not valid reasons for an AfD and ~~I will alert admin to close this down~~. As an editor of all BC Universities/Colleges wiki pages, I actually find the comment rather insulting and ill informed.--Cahk (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would you enroll in this 'University' when the editors are all accusing each other of bias? I would be scared off. This article needs major cleaning up or be deleted. No administrator at the institute would appreciate what Wikipedia's article on them has become! Artene50 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is actually getting silly - if you are truly looking for admission info, the last thing you look at is Wikipedia... Once again, Wikipedia did not establish itself to please anyone or any institution. If someone doesn't like it, they are free to edit the article themselves. I agree it needs some re-write, but AfD? Either you don't understand how Wiki works or you are using the wrong method of getting improvement.--Cahk (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment When a tag on the the subject article says "This article or section contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information," one wonders which section of this article is verifiable and which is false. I don't know who placed the tag here but it must be profoundly disturbing to the administrators who run this place. Artene50 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. It begs to question of you are one of the said administrator? Tags are placed so Wiki editors can improve on an article. If every article that gets tagged be AfD, you will see massive backlog on Wikipedia. If you don't like what you see now and thinks you can improve it, then be bold. --Cahk (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I am not an administrator or employee of this place, wherever it is in Canada. I just don't know why there are so many tags questioning the article itself--and that is what concerns me. What would an employer who is thinking of hiring a graduate from this place think after reading Wikipedia's page on the University? Maybe someone who knows this place can be bold but I can't since I don't know it. The article does not do credit to this place sadlyArtene50 (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Artene50: If an employer who truly cares about the quality of his/her employees comes to Wikipedia for information, I would question if you really want to work with that company.... It all spins back to: That's not Wikipedia is for.--Cahk (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep University. Clean-up concerns should be discussed at talk page not AfD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK section 2(iv). Townlake (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice The user who pasted the 'weasel words' tab, GreenJoe, here: [1] has now retired. Since no one can divine his concerns, I have removed the weasel template from this institute's Wikipedia article. I now formally ask an Admin to please close my nomination for deletion ASAP. Hopefully someone can address the quality concerns in this article. Artene50 (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Don't take his user page too literally and instead, look at his contribution (July 18) as oppose to 'retired' on user page (June 22).--Cahk (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since he hasn't recently cited his concerns on this article's talkpage since August 2007 (1 whole year), I think it best to just close this AfD. No one can take seriously a person who claims he is retired on his User page but still edits anyway. Artene50 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.