Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Dreams (2nd nomination)

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. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Dreams[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Filing AFD on behalf of new editor who didn't do it properly. Rationale was "Organization not significant, article is written as advertisement for organization Notice the "we", aka "outside contributions"." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is certainly enough reliable secondary sourcing here for notability. If editors think it reads as advertisement, they should do some editing work to correct that fault. --MLKLewis (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being mentioned isn't really notable, they are mentioned indeed but so were other companies that are not on Wikipedia as well. There aren't any significant articles that specifically talk about University of Dreams they mention it and that's it. Boobymonster (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, the article was created by a user Sbergner2001, Scott Bergner is the media contact at University of Dreams, the article was created as an ad to the company:

http://www.summerinternships.com/about-us/media.php Boobymonster (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. The secondary sources show notability. A412 (Talk * C) 00:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Done fixing it up for WP:NPOV. Looks notable, if just barely, because of the media coverage. A412 (Talk * C) 05:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 08:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—per the expansion and cleanup done by A412—It's now clearly notable... a great example of how article rescue could work. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:38, 18 February 2012 (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.