Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for European studies

: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 redirect to University College London. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Centre for European studies]]=

:{{la|Centre for European studies}} ([{{fullurl:Centre for European studies|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for European studies}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Contested prod; prod tag was deleted without explanation and without edits to improve the article by an editor who is currently blocked for disruptive bad faith deprodding and wikihounding. No assertion of notability, and, a Google search simply reveals that many universities have centres for European studies, there is no evidence that this one in particular meets the the notability guidelines for inclusion. Has been tagged with {{unsourced}} and {{notability}} for more than a year. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • deletetoo little info to consider merging. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to University College London. Contrary to the previous editor, this is a classic case of WP:PRESERVE: the subject is not notable, so it doesn't deserve its own article, but it's verifiable that it exists, so a very brief mention in the main article is entirely appropriate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to University College London. I'm not a fan of merging unsourced material, so this should be just be redirected unless someone bothers citing the information. ThemFromSpace 02:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable - Note that deprodder was not a valid editor - sock of banned editor doing block evasion, all actions are invalid and would have been reverted, meaning this would likely have been deleted without need for an AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (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.