Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwood 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 of the debate was keep. -R. fiend 06:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ashwood University

I got through the first 6 words of this article before the alarm bells become too load and I turned to google: "Ashwood University is a fully recognized university". A quick google search turns up [1], [2] and [3], confirming my suspicion. Delete, unless somebody want to write an accurate article exposing the scam. Thue | talk 20:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Diploma mill. --Kewp (t) 20:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Life Experience Degree Dlyons493 Talk 20:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Pilatus's rewrite which provides factual information. For me the key question is now whether this objectionable orgaisation is sufficiently notable or not. On balance I think it probably is. Just being objectionable isn't an adeqaute reason to delete it. Dlyons493 Talk 07:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete current content, and recreate as a redirect to Diploma mill. It's a pity that delete, redirect and salt the earth isn't an available option. Sliggy 20:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable degree granting diploma mill which garners over 14-thousand hits on Google. [4] This should be cleaned up and refactored, not erased. Silensor 21:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a diploma mill that sells highly dubious examination certificates over the internet. Why is the number of Google hits relevant? Sliggy 21:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Because it's a first indication of the size of the scam. We are not judging if it's reprehensible to sell "degrees in life experience", our job is to judge if they are well-known for doing so. Note: Saint Regis University, notorious for having provided services to a bunch of Georgia teachers some time ago has some 350 unique Google hits. This specimen clocks up about 185. Pilatus 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite, having neutral and accurate articles on these diploma mills is a useful public service. - SimonP 21:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect. Only universities that educate should have articles. Gazpacho 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a particularly notable example of a diploma mill --Carnildo 21:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please silensor is right we should fix this to be more accurate not erase it that makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 22:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No, sorry. On this I take a directly confrontational line. I cannot imagine any circumstances when an organisation like this, essentially stealing disadvantaged individuals' money, is worth an article. The subject of this article has nothing to do with education, and is simply heartless profiteering. Furthermore, with apologies, I am stunned into disbelief by the keep votes. Sliggy 00:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The "List of diploma mills" "List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning" exists and has a fair amount of bluelinks. Why anyone would vote keep for the article in its present form is beyond me, though. Pilatus 01:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Note: Article has been rewritten Pilatus 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep. I think that, on reflection (and reading through the arguments posted here), Wikipedia is improved by Pilatus' excellent NPOV rewrite. It allows readers to rapidly discern the fucking disgusting scam service that this institution provides. Sorry for losing my temper. Sliggy 15:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment we don't have articles only on good things at WP. Something being evil is not a valid deletion criterion. It would be easy to think of a dozen other scams which have legitimate WP articles. No vote —Wahoofive (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reason we keep International Star Registry. -- Mwalcoff 02:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, an Internet-based scam may have a high number of search results, but it doesn't make it notable. -- Kjkolb 03:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Redirect, or Merge not notable scam Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - There's the problem that, while the scam seems obvious, we lack objective independent sources of information to talk about it here. Also, the "Ashwood University" is not a distinct entity. It could be one of countless names by a single organization. Even if that underlying organization warrants an article (I can't say), we can't write such an article unless such an organization is exposed in a documented, publicized, and verifiable manner. --rob 06:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Pilatus's rewrite as a community service. If someone comes across one of their ads, and comes here to get more information, they should know what they're getting themselves in for. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is a poser. I am in agreement with the above, since Pilatus' NPOV scourging rewrite is a good source that this is a totally sham institution. OTOH, caveat emptor is not grounds for notability. So even though I like the rewrite, I still think this fails the notability test which is the guiding principle for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Keep Red King's point is well-taken. Dottore So 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Angr. Xoloz 10:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Angr. What's the point of a List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning if there can't also be articles exposing each scam. For example, the wiki article on Breyer State University gets near top billing on Google, helping to advise prospective students and employers that it would be cheaper to print their own mock degree certificates. These diploma mills are notable becuase of what they are not, rather than becuase of what they are. --Red King 10:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The rewrite by Pilatus makes it clear what sort of "university" this actually is. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Mwalcoff; the analogy to International Star Registry is a good one. MCB 01:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Crypticfirefly 05:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I am tired of justifying. So i'll simply say keep. --Oblivious 13:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as Ashwood University (diploma mill) and create redirect; if indeed it is not an university, the original title is misleading. --Vsion 22:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Diploma mills are inherently notable. Especially those that have been featured in documentaries.--Nicodemus75 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. Another fine job. Unfocused 06:53, 13 October 2005 (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.