Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ateneo De La Salle 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 delete. Tan | 39 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo De La Salle University[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP. Advertising slant. References do not meet WP:RS, as they are from the site itself. See talk page of this discussion; author also admits to WP:COI. Borderline speedy; wanted community input. Tan | 39 22:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not admitting to COI. I am saying that the article probably or might be considered as falling under it in the sense that it is an article primarily authored by me- a member of the site who has firsthand and personal experience with using it. It was a personal project for me because I did put alot of thought and work into it. IMO, it is still one of the more sensible articles out there that are up for deletion. I absolutely do not wish to stray against the wishes and main goals of Wikipedia since I myself am a strong supporter of Wikipedia. As for NPOV, I admit I have nothing bad to say about the site except for load times, recent and occasional lounge lag though I did not include that since there would be no reference of it and it'd be a personal reference. I am simply being honest since honesty is one of main guidelines when NPOV and COI is in question. I have nothing to hide and I have stated that this is not for personal gain. I do not seek to glorify the site and in the page I recreated the information from scratch based on their main vision and goals in the references. As for notability, I recently did add a new section in the article that contains 3rd party links. Please do revisit it. Thanks. Universitylibrarian (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I nominated this for speedy deletion in its original form. This is much improved, but still does not have reliable sources to support claim to notability. JNW (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 15:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this website is notable. I would like to see at least some sort of article from newspapers or magazines at least. There are plenty of local websites that have tons of memberships and/or traffic so something more substantial than that should be used to assert notability. --seav (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator for the speedy delete of this article as a G3-hoax and as per all above. Also fails all criteria in WP:WEBSITE. If this thing's result was keep, then I'll make an article about Mapua's MapuaOwnage. E Wing (talk)

Delete, not notable, spammy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:29, 16 June 2009 (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.