From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on September 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

OK -- I have edited the article to (1) leave in the allegations of controversial practices by this institution and its founder, but (2) to remove the ones that are unsourced. Future editors should neither remove sourced, relevant allegations, nor add unsourced or irrelevant ones. With that in mind, I'm unprotecting the article. Good luck. NawlinWiki 19:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Degree info and google groups 2 Editing myself 3 = 3.1 Article Deleted

[edit] Degree info and google groups

These are not acceptable sources per WP:RS. If at all possible comments based on them should be removed or they should be better sourced. JoshuaZ 04:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

====OK. I have edited this page to make it a listing about Northcentral University. If you want to author an article on some other topic, by all means, please do. And in fact, feel free to do so anonymously. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BertWoodall (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Editing myself

May I make a suggest to you gentlemen. I noticed that entries for several boating clubs were deleted because they were deemed mere advertisements. You could elect to view the Northcentral University page in the same way, and thus suitable for deletion.

In these cases people who desired to write about allegations that some oarsmen have received splinters while pursuing their hobby, or that a given canoe company put out a product in 1997 with a poor quality varnish--or indeed, that the first president of the boating club in question was a raging drunk, rude to waiters and exhibited poor table manners--were incidentally compelled to find other outlets for expressing their opinions.

By the same token, 70.59.246.169 can find some other vehicle to express his grudge against Don Hecht. I forget who first said this mot, but I am reminded of the critic's literary review: The parts that were original weren't good and the parts that were good weren't original. In the case of Mr. 70.59.246.169's contributions, the parts that were factual weren't relevant; the parts that were relevant weren't factual.

Visit the NCU website. Apply for enrollmennt and if accepted, earn another Ph.D. (Our school of business, for example, has 111 Mentors. Of those, 109 have at leat terminal degrees--Ph.D., D.B.A., or J.D.--and the othere two are CEOs of pretty good-sized companies. And they teach their students--Learners, we call them--one on one. Name a brick and mortar school that can say that.

70.59.246.169 doesn't have to like NCU or its founder. But Wikipedia is abusing its mission if it allows that anomymous guy to twist the university's encyclopedia entry.

And by the way, you guys can communicate with me directly. My email is bwoodall@ncu.edu. Ask and I'll even give you the toll free number so you can call me up and tell me where I'm wrong here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BertWoodall (talk • contribs).

No one owns Wikipedia articles. If you disagree with the edits by others, the proper thing to do is to get the community involved by, for example, filing a request for comment. Meanwhile, however, I will be submitting the article for deletion -- to be determined by the community, not by you or by me. --Nlu (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I demand a hearing. Those are not edits. Those are digressions and attacks. Convene the community and delete this page. In the meantime you might also restore only those edits that are not off topic and take a few mintes to refute ANY of my points. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BertWoodall (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not censored and you do not own this page. These controversies are well cited, and are not attacked. We will not bend to your demands, either. We have tried to discuss this civilly with you, but it does not appear to have much effect. Ryūlóng 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

BertWoodall, you seem to be mis-identifying who added in the controversies section. If you look at this edit you will see that the origional source of almost all of the material you appear to be objecting to is Highperformanceauto (talk • contribs). As for 70.59.246.169 (talk • contribs), s/he consolidated the extended marketing information into with a briefer, more encyclopedic tone, and did some minor formating updates to the article as it existed at that point in these edits. Then s/he went on to edit other things, as is borne out in their edit history. You then left this odd little note on the talk page for 70.59.246.169, which seems to have then sparked this revert. Others made various contributions before, during & after that point, but you seem to be fixated on 70.59.246.169 as if they are somehow out to get you, which doesn't make much sense when actually look at the edit history. You may want to take greater care in understanding what is actually being presented in an articles edit history before you start casting dispersions. "Care to comment?" -- 63.226.38.202 05:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =

I see that the forces of ambiguation have triumphed in the matter of Northcentral University's wikipedia entry. Irrelevance as definition. Nice job, kids.

The "controversies" alleged about NCU, however, are still not about NCU--with the attenuated exception of SCUPS, which is in fact still in existance and is owned by the same corporation that owns NCU. NCU is not unique in this perfidy: Pepsico owns both Quaker Oats and Cheetos. Consumers may be presumed to know the difference but "editors" are invited to deem the relationship between the two products a controversy. (SCUPS students, by the way, can transfer to NCU subject to the same academic evaluation accorded students from Harvard (not accredited) or Podunk Junior College (possibly accredited).

My apologies, I guess, to 70.59.246.169 to the extent justified. I am sure Mr/s. Number sought only pare down the NCU entry and is doubtless wandering Wikipedia changing many other entries to read precisely as they would had "s/he" written them in the first place. So please transfer my observations of outright malice to Highperformanceauto (also thoroughly anonymous). When casting "dispersions" I may aspire to a more general accuracy. When casting aspersions, however, I really should be precise. Mr/s. Highperformanceauto should consider him/her/it/self aspersed.

-- Bert Woodall

[edit] Article Deleted

I've deleted this article. Anyone can feel free to create this article again, but if you don't cite your sources (especially on controversial claims), it will be deleted again. Ral315 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)