Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University College Roosevelt

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. Tawker (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University College Roosevelt[edit]

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

Not an independent college, but a part of the Utrecht University. Just an outreach location. Advertising. The Banner talk 15:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS AGAINST DELETING THIS PAGE:

I. It is true that University College Roosevelt (situated in Middelburg) is linked to Utrecht University. It is wrong however to call it 'not an independent' college: financially speaking, and at the level of organisation, UCR is independent. For instance diplomas of UCR graduates mention "Utrecht University", however the college's management is entirely independent, as is it's Board of Trustees. Especially when comparing UCR to similar colleges in The Netherlands, such as UCU (University College Utrecht) and UCM (University College Maastricht), one should admit its special status: it's not just another faculty / campus of Utrecht University. For these reasons, I find it unjust to delete the UCR Wikipedia page, simply based on one argument saying it's "not an independent college". (27/03/2014 - 17.34h).

II. The fact that University College Roosevelt is not independent (which is debatable; it has its own identity, it's financially independent and only in name is it part of Utrecht University) should not play a role in deciding whether or not to delete its page. UCR absolutely deserves its own page. The page is accessed and used a great deal by past, current and future students. People who have never heard of UCR can find information about it on this page, and can use it to determine whether they would like to apply. This is a valuable page, and the fact that it is so extensive should show how dear it is to so many people. The wiki page for UCR is a valuable resource, it seems beyond belief that one would consider getting rid of it simply because it isn't formally entirely 'independent': it doesn't matter at all. Wikipedia has pages on countless provinces in countries, yet we don't say that because the provinces aren't independent that we should get rid of those pages. I urge you to keep this page on UCR online.

A tad ridiculous. Birkbeck, University of London is also not an independent university, but nonetheless (deservedly) gets its own page. In many ways, University Colleges in the Netherlands function in the same way.. especially when located 80 kilometers away from the larger 'mother' university! In fact, see Colleges of the University of Oxford for a whole bunch of candidates for deletion that use wikipedia solely as 'outreach location' and 'advertising'. 87.195.173.178 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's part of another university, but it's effectively a separate institution with its own identity. As the anon above says, we have many articles on such institutions that are technically not independent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article should be cut down to the relevant, non-promotional basis - I agree - but the institution itself is definitely relevant. It functions as a geographically and educationally distinct institution. DimiTalen 14:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not see any advertising aspects within this article, moreover at least the UCR is financially totally indepent. GWronna (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GWronna (talk • contribs) 20:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — GWronna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.