Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flamel College

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 delete per WP:V and WP:CORP. --Coredesat 00:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flamel College

Flamel College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? There are only two sources of trivial mention, which fails WP:CORP. No google news hits. One mention is "Determined to apply academic rigor to his pursuit, Mr. Villella took several online courses from Flamel College, which keeps a post office box in Sacramento ..."[1] WP:CORP is clear and this fails criteria. Arbusto 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Indeed. --humblefool® 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Many google hits and enough people claiming certificates from the school to make it worth keeping. In particular, author Dennis Hauck [2] prominently claims to be an instructer there [3]. Further verifiable through references from the New York Times and other sources (which this nom has sought to remove [4]). I think we should document as many of these types of schools as we can, expanding our coverage beyond the bare bones List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning that wikipedia carefully maintains (as per the list guideline, which mandates articles for list components). An alternative would be to merge info into the list, but there is probably enough meat to maintain a separate article. --JJay 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Conspiracy people claiming "certificates" from a PO Box is not a criteria for inclusion. There is not enough independent, RS sources for an article on this unaccredited school. WP:CORP is the criteria, and you have included trival sources that mention this in passing (read WP:CORP #1 to see why this fails). You have trivial mentions and no article that actually discusses this school. The NY Times (I linked above, but you omitted in your reference) says in one sentence its a PO Box and that's it. Also as you have been told before, just because I added it to a list does not mean wikipedia must keep it. Arbusto 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Wp:Corp is a guideline. I consider it a stretch when applied to a school. For example, few schools are "listed on ranking indices" or have share prices "used to calculate stock market indices". Few schools have share prices full stop. However, the Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) guideline does state that: Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. [5]. I consider that further justification for keeping articles of this type. Otherwise, my reasons for wanting to maintain the article are explained above. --JJay 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are saying we should keep this because I added it to the unaccredited list? Arbusto 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Read my first comment for numerous reasons why this article should be kept (and expanded). --JJay 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No response with substance? Arbusto 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. To clarify, this is a bunch of woowoos I've heard of before, but even given that I was unable to find multiple independent non-trivial sources online or any other indication of notability. Which is too bad really, because I'd actually like to keep this one... I think its kinduv funny. JoshuaZ 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xdenizen 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Don't see why an unaccredited school needs an article on Wikipedia, no assertion of notability. IMO, this school sounds like some half-past six school. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment A) What makes you think that users will do so? B) Since when was that an inclusion criterion? JoshuaZ 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering that this is an unaccredited college, perhaps wp:corp should be used for consideration, contra to an above comment. --Dennisthe2 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcus1234 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay, it is more than reasonable that readers will turn to Wikipedia for this information. Yamaguchi先生 06:00, 9 November 2006
• Keep JJay makes a strong argument.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please. This is a "school" that gives degrees in ghost hunting. Did you even review the article? Arbusto 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Its about as useful in the real world as a college giving a degree in Turfgrass Management (Ohio State), Poultry Science (Univ of MD), or video gaming.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those are all large industries (and Poultry Science is to be blunt necessary for the standard of living in most developed nations). Ghost hunting on the other hand...(note, I don't think this actually has much to do with notability anyways, but its worth noting). JoshuaZ 06:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Please assume good faith that those who have commented have reviewed the article. This is a unique and interesting school, with verifiable coverage (i.e. New York Times) that without a doubt should be included on a project aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. Silensor 05:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Verifable? The NY Times' trival mention is posted at the start of this nom says it based from a PO Box. Explain how it meets WP:CORP. Also unique isn't a criteria for inclusion. Arbusto 08:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence that this is an institution with any academic standing, and after an admittedl brief check I can't verify any of the article from reliable independent secondary sources. Guy 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• What exactly is the basis for that statement? I provided three references when I addded material to the article including the NY Times. They are all reliable, independent and secondary. --JJay 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The article I linked from the NY times at the top and is cited in the article simply states it is a PO Box. That is also on its webpage. Hardly passes any WP:V of a study body, history, etc. Arbusto 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:V miserably. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:39, 11 November 2006 (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.