Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Institute of Technology

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 per WP:SNOW, by JJL. Non-admin close. JJL (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Institute of Technology

Non-notable educational institute. Contested prod. Ale_Jrb ^talk 21:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very notable, it played athletics in the NCAA College Division, that is VERY notable. Keep --Josh (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being one of 1200 colleges to take part in a nationwide athletics competition in 1982 does not a notable college make. Did it come up with it? Win it every year for a decade? Host it regularly? If not, I'd still vote for a delete. Ale_Jrb ^talk 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; um, yes, it does. There's absolutely no reason why every single one of those 1200 colleges shouldn't have an article, and every single one of those colleges has buttloads of sources, if just talking about their sports programs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See List of defunct college football teams

Weak delete. Despite the fact that the college closed way back before there was much of an Internet, I still doubt that this one is even remotely notable. If the above user's comment is true and can be verified, however, I might go for a weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per consensus, colleges are pretty much always notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; universities are an auto-keep. Any accredited school will have tons of sources. It played in NCAA college division, which means there are thousand of newspaper sources nattering on about how the teams going. Looking at books.google.com finds things ranging from Patterson's American Education to Detroit Institute of Technology: A College Grows in the Inner-city (1966) to Development and Projected Role of the Detroit Institute of Technology (1961) or The College of Engineering, the Detroit Institute of Technology (1972).--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as above. Being one of 1200 schools in the NCAA does assert notability, much less would assert notability. That said, this article does need a lot of work.-Kevinebaugh (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real college [1], clearly notable per Google. JJL (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as accredited college. Legitimate higher ed institutions are inherently notable, and notability does not expire. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom makes no case as to why this accredited post-secondary college is non-notable. --Oakshade (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even defunct colleges are notable. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure how non-notability could be asserted. Maybe SNOW? matt91486 (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even a casual search reveals dozens of sources. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to help build the article. Gary King (talk) 10:07, 17 February 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.