Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International School of Management (ISM)

There are many schools called "International School of Management", which have no connection to this one (for example this German school called International School of Management). This one, however, is NOT accredited. Its claims "accreditation" from World Association of Universities and Colleges, which IS NOT recognized by ANY government as legitimate. In fact it will accredit for around a $100 USD. Thus, without this being accredited or a public school it must meet WP:CORP and have WP:RS. Arbusto 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 04:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sure their diplomas look Mahvelous! - Richfife 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The school figures prominently on our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, something the nom knows full well. Our list guidelines are fairly clear. They state: "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." [1]. It makes very little sense to do lists of institutions - accredited or not - but then seek to delete articles on the underlying components of the lists. Furthermore, the best way to avoid the confusion indicated by this nom is to have an article on the school. Citing WP:Corp is also as stretch, given that most if not all the institutions on List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning would fail wp:Corp. An institution does not get a free ride to be on a list if it does not qualify for an article. --JJay 14:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
1) Note the use of the word "ideally" in the sentence you quoted. Perhaps, once this is deleted it should be removed from the List of diploma mills too. 2) Feel free to nominate unaccredited institutions that fail notability. Just because there may be unnotable "unaccredited schools" (I say may because you failed to give examples) that is no reason to give every questionable instituion an ad space on wikipedia. Arbusto 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is really like arguing with a child. If YOU think the list of mills should be put up for afd then YOU do it. If YOU think this is notable YOU should give sources. Arbusto 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Not a child, although it is a bit childish to start shouting or bolding your comments. I think if we are going to do lists of non-notable diploma mills - and let's admit it, they are all non-notable, meaningless and obscure - we should have articles on those diploma mills so we know what we are talking about. Doing lists of non-notable subjects is a waste of wikipedia time and space. The non-notable diploma mill list needs articles on all its underlying components, per the list guidelines, or it should not exist. --JJay 01:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Then put the list up for afd, and let's see if anyone agrees with you. Before you do see the reasons it was kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Arbusto 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't waste my time nominating articles for deletion. I'm interested in expanding the extent of coverage at wikipedia, based on existing guidelines. However, copying diploma mill names from government websites in order to construct a pseudo-official diploma mill list at wikipedia that goes no further than the name of the school, and then deleting articles on the underlying diploma mills, does a disservice to the users of this reference work. It provides no better information than can already be found in outside databases. It violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines. In my view, it is a sad waste of resources and editors' time. --JJay 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
That a serious claim perhaps you better deal with it then if it "violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines." I guess if you don't deal with it then the claim is WRONG and smokescreen for you to attack me in another afd nominated by me. Arbusto 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
If anyone needs proof JJay is doing this for WP:POINT see his comments on a copy and pasted list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ...for Dummies books (2 nomination), which happened to be nominated by me as well. Directly taken off a publishers webpage and the list does not contain wikipedia articles. Arbusto 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am "dealing with it" by voting to keep this article, just like with the unrelated list you are hammering on about, just like with the vast majority of my participation here. As I said, removing information on topics of interest to wikipedia users, such as this article, does a disservice to users of this reference work. It should be avoided when at all possible. --JJay 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn diploma mill. Eusebeus 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. To respond to JJay; the arbitrary inclusion of an institution on a list is not an argument for keeping an article about it, since anyone can write an article about a non-notable institution, add the institution to the list, and then argue to keep the article based on it being on the list. That doesn't make a lot of sense, and it seems to me that the article should be judged on the encyclopedic merit of the institution itself, which appears to me to be an unremarkable degree mill. --MCB 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See the list guidelines. We have entire lists of these types of institutions, "unremarkable diploma mills" in your words... They are either worthwhile subjects for listing and, as per the guidelines, articles, or they are not. In that case we should not be wasting our time doing lists of diploma mills- almost all of which are obscure, non -notable, non entities. They all fail wp:corp--JJay 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 08:14, 2 October 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.