Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newport University (California)

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 no consensus. I find it rather disturbing that so many established editors think the number of google hits should be the primary reason we include an article, but whatever. Based on the numbers there is no consensus to delete, thankfully arguments other than the google hits were presented, and per JJay's argument and evidence there does seem to be reliable information written about this topic. I suggest actually citing it in the article, which is about 0.02% as long as this AfD. W.marsh 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newport University (California)

Newport University (California) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? Created by Drsalleh (talk · contribs), who's only made 3 article edits. Approved by California's consumer department (NOT education), thus must pass WP:CORP. Possible diploma mill.[1] Arbusto 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per well summarized nomination. JoshuaZ 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Do not mismatch stub with delete candidate. Tulkolahten 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Accredited or not, this school brings in over 385,000 relevant Google hits. What are the requirements for obtaining an .edu domain name, does anyone know? Silensor 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It depends very much how and when you got it. I know someone who technically owns Miskatonic.edu (see Miskatonic University). My impression is that it has gotten harder in the last few years. JoshuaZ 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see relevant hits. Wikipedia and mirrors, and the Chronicle for Higher Education talks about "Christopher Newport University." Arbusto 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unaccredited colleges should not have articles. They are nothing more than non-notable corporations. --- RockMFR 04:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor, it seems to have gained some notoriety. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
How does it pass WP:CORP? How many students attend? Does it have a campus? The only place that knows of this is a divison of California Department of Consumer Affairs NOT any academic accreditor nor the Department of Education. Arbusto 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It is a school. Just because it is a private company does not mean it is not a school. Unacredited is not the same a not notable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Schools which are unaccredited are in many ways only schools in so far as they claim to be schools. It isn't clear to me why they shouldn't be treated a corporations. JoshuaZ 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Acreddited simply means officially recognized. While unaccredited may mean it is not notable, it really only means it is not officially recognized, by whatever officials happen to be in charge of accrediting, not that it is neccesarily not notable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that unaccredited doens't mean not-notable. Bob Jones University is an obvious counterexample. However, it does make it reasonable to apply WP:CORP. This university seems to fail it. JoshuaZ 03:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
An article does not need to meet every notability requirement it may fall under, only one(unless I am wrong). My stance is that while it may be a CORP, it is still a SCHOOL, and if it meets one of them, as opposed to all of them, it is fine. Yes, it is a CORP, but it is still a SCHOOL. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but we have a consensus about corporations. We have no consensus abotu schools. So it maybe makes sense to differ to the one we have an actual consensus on? JoshuaZ 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think so, because that consensus was not neccesarily made with schools in mind. To be frank, it seems like a bit of a stretch to apply CORP to a school simply because it is not accredited. After all, acredited schools can be private corperations aswell, I don't see the connection. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This place is for-profit, see policies on WP:CORP. And thus, is much different a public high school. It lacks sources and notability. Arbusto 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Article needs to be expanded. We seem to have an arbitrary distinction between accredited and unaccredited schools that seems to have no factual basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Newport U. would seem to be no different from any other non-public university or school. Alansohn 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
A public institution must have accreditation implies notability. Unaccredited schools like Bob Jones University have established notability with the number of students and articles, etc. Do have nothing like that here? Any articles for notability? Any statistics IF ANYONE ATTENDS? Arbusto 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with nomination. Nothing here suggesting notability. It apparently exists, is located in Newport, and is unaccredited. Wikipedia is not a directory. —ptk✰fgs 06:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Silensor. --ManiF 07:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This place is "for profit" in this link that comes up as the top ten ghits supplied by Silensor. Can anyone explain how this meets WP:CORP. Arbusto 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Like I said before, it is still a school, even if they make profit. Most major schools profit. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No, most private schools are non-profit (all public are non-profit by definition), which gives them different tax stuctures and incentives. Moreover, its an unaccredited school that we can't verfiy academics nor do we have any WP:RS to write an article with. Please supply some WP:RS if you wish to expand this instead of keeping it as a two sentence stub. You can't even answer my basic question: HOW MNY STUDENTS CLAIM TO ATTEND? Arbusto 02:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor. Notable Google hit count and commenters above suggest that our readers will look to Wikipedia for neutral coverage of this educational institution regardless of its accreditations or lack thereof. Yamaguchi先生 06:04, 9 November 2006
What are some of these links that cover this subject? Post them here. We have NOTHING to write an article with. Arbusto 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor, there is significant Google coverage here... I think a strong argument can therefore be made regarding its notability.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You "think an argument can be made"? Of that ghit count what are some WP:RS we can write an article with? I see forums, ads, and a bunch of other places with the "Newport University" not tied to this. Also how does this meet WP:CORP? Arbusto 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment for all those "per Silensor" keeps: most of the Google hits returned are not about the Newport University on Newport Beach at all, but about the Cristopher Newport University. When you search for "NEwport University" California -"Christopher Newport", you already drop to 13,500 Ghits[2]. Many of those are still false positives, but you get the idea. As for the number of students: they seem to have had a grand total of 8 graduates in 1993[3], and are not listed in the COOL database[4]. As far as I can see, it is an unaccredited correspondence law school with some 10 to 15 students each year[5]. Since OCtober 2004, only two first years students passed the "Baby Bar"[6]. Apart from their own website and such statistics which prove existence (although with a very limited number of correspondence students), I am unable to find any reviews, discussions, or other WP:V sources to show any notability. Fram 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my above comment and per nom. Fram 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, but this is because of concerns over sources that indicate notability. --SunStar Net 11:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. First, the school is registered with California for the bar exam [7]. It is also my understanding that Newport students can take the California licensing exam in clinical psychology and family counseling. Second, there are reliable sources available for the school, for example the Salt Lake Tribune did an extremely long expose in 1996 when it registered in Utah (pay site) [8]. Third, whatever you may think of these types of schools, people are getting degrees from Newport and sometimes working in positions of authority. That can cause controversy. Stanley Blondek, an expert witness and California prison youth counselor who claimed a masters and PhD from Newport (but repeatedly failed the California licensing exam) is an example (pay site) [9]. Fourth, Wikipedia is meant to be a comprehensive reference work. We should be doing articles on all schools, accredited and unaccredited. Our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning is a very limited start but provides no real information and is unsourced (but does include Newport). We need articles on the underlying institutions. --JJay 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
1) Registered with the bar examin means what? According to that page, "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools." So your link means the bar has heard of this place before, but it doesn't know if its reilable.
  • You seem not particularly well informed of the requirements for admission to the bar in the state of California. Schools must fully adhere to bar exam rule XIX related to law study in unaccredited shools [10]. This requires state licensing, inspection, a qualified faculty, classroom study, library, etc. The requirements are not easy to meet. --JJay 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Review [11] and feel free to provide [WP:RS]] for each criteria. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
What??? California sets standards for allowing students from various institutions to sit for the bar exam and in the case of unaccredited schools, bar exam rule XIX is applicable (as indicated in my previous post). It is not up to me to "provide WP:RS for each criteria". The school is listed on the California bar exam website, meaning they have passed inspection and adhere to the clauses of rule XIX. Pretty simple really. If you believe that is not the case please enlighten us. --JJay 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, people can walk in and take the test. Does American Bar Association accredit law schools: YES. Does Newport have accreditation: NO. Has this been called a diploma mill: YES. Can the California Bar Association say this provides an good/quality education: NO. Does this place meet the standards for the California Bar Accreditation[12]: NO. Does California of Bar Examiners approve or accredit correspondence schools: NO.[13] Have you given any reason why this for-profit place meets WP:CORP: NO. Arbusto 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No one claimed the school is accredited. That is not at issue. Your statement that "people can walk in and take the test" is false. The school has to be inspected and must adhere to a series of requirements. That is why few schools are on the list. Your comment that the school has been called a "diploma mill" is completely unproven. Provide proof of that statement. The California Bar's non-opinion of unaccredited schools is not the issue here either. Finally, WP/Corp is a guideline that should not apply to schools for obvious reasons. The interest of these types of articles is to have background information on institutions of higher learning that are awarding degrees to people that sometimes achieve positions of authority (in this case potential lawyers, social workers, psychologists). That is inherently notable and supercedes WP/Corp and its fixation on stock prices. --JJay 13:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
We have two sources that question its academics, and no one disputes its for-profit nature. 1) Here. 2) In an article in South China Morning Post Stella Lee's article "Overseas university under investigation in Hong Kong" states "The Newport University of California which is not accredited by the American education authorities, started offering courses ... through distance learning courses." This was in relation to Newport's "classes" which "are not in the form of instruction, we just ask the students to raise their questions and discuss them with experts." This again is a trival mention in the paper, but leads use to question Newport's seriousness as a "school"
You still haven't offered any sources as to how this business meets WP:CORP. Arbusto 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
You cearly haven't read the first source, which never calls the school a diploma mill. Nor does the second source, apparently. The only person making that claim is you, but without proof. If you question Newport's "seriousness" take it up with the Bar association of California. --JJay 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
2) Your insisting we keep an article for a ten year old Salt Lake newspaper that calls this place a diploma mill is more of a reason to delete. That is, no one has provided any criticism in the article about its ppor quality of instruction. Thus, your link makes us more skeptical about the article meeting WP:V. The article says nothing about criticism, which is very misleading per your one article. Readers, right now, get the false impression that is place's academics aren't questionable per the one source you mentioned.
3) Lastly, as you have been told just because I added this to the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean we keep it. We kept WP:V and notable unaccredited schools. One article from ten years ago does not prove notablity. Arbusto 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
1) While the school is not accredited, the fact that several state bodies do provide some level of recognition to the school is not only evidence of verifiability, it also goes a long way to establishing notability in the context of a university. 2) The source is independent, reliable and verifiable. There is simply no criteria that the source must be recent OR that it must be positive. "Non-trivial coverage" is timeless. As the source is provided, readers can make their own impression of the article's characterization. 3) A reminder that a school's presence on the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean it should be deleted. 4) The time has come to address the evidence of notability and get past the fact that it is unaccredited. There is simply no standard whatsoever that makes an accredited school notable OR makes an unaccredited school a non-notable target for deletion. Alansohn 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
1) Its on a list for california's consumer division with 1800 of other unaccrediteds; hardly notable. Review WP:CORP. 2) You have one article from ten years ago. Review WP:CORP. 3) Yes. No one said otherwise. 4) Yes, notability is important. How does it pass WP:CORP? Arbusto 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the arguments and research provided by Fram. 10-15 graduates per year is insufficient justification for an article. -Kubigula (ave) 05:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note to closing admin. no user who voted to retain this has provided evidence of it passing WP:CORP. According to this "university's" website ten to fifteen people "graduate" this place a year. We have no independent or verifable statistics or facts about anything. This has serious WP:V issues. Arbusto 00:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry but that is false. There is no information regarding student numbers on the school's website. The link provided by User:Fram shows eight law school graduates in 1993 and is from a California education site. The school also has numerous other programs. Finally, WP:Corp is a guideline. It is entirely debateable whether it should apply to a school. And numerous valid reasons have been given for keeping the article. Regarding WP:V, as indicated above, sources exist that confirm the school, its programs and that students are eligible to sit for the bar. There are no WP:V issues, serious or otherwise, with the basic facts of the article.--JJay 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
1) This is for-profit.[14] How does it meet WP:CORP?
2) It is NOT accredited by the California bar as I noted above. Allowing people to take a test is different than accreditation.
3) According to the org. you are citing "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools."
4)[15] One source describes "Newport" as " A couple of clunker cars sit in the driveway of a 40-year-old brick house, which sits squarely in a commercial zone: a hardware store in back, an equipment-rental company in front and a McDonald's expanding up the street. The back yard has an old cedar fence, a rusting clothesline and an overgrown shade tree. Inside the house, a secondhand desk, some office chairs, bookshelves and a pair of torch lamps are assembled in the living room. Welcome to Newport..." Also note the title of the article.
5) Hence serious WP:V issues. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It doesn't matter whether the school is accredited or not. It exists and someone cared enough to write an article about it, therefore is worthy of an article. If it is a diploma mill, put this in the article. Actually, articles on diploma mills would be an excellent public service, since it would out them as such to any potential student who doesn't realise what the institution is. If it is a diploma mill, that makes it more notable than if it were just a small, unaccredited college. *jb 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back to wikipedia. However, you failed to offer sources for WP:V. Can we properly assert it is a university or a for-profit diploma mill? No one has offer evidence for either. Thus, academics aside this is for-profit. How does it meet WP:CORP? Do we have enough sources to write a NPOV article about this business? I don't think so. Arbusto 02:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete — No verification on university's "status" - delete per the WP:V issues mentioned above. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 03:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as we're apparently unable to independently verify the noteability of this institution. It should not be deleted merely because it is unaccredited but that does it make it much more difficult to establish noteability as it's not listed in IPEDS. --ElKevbo 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and per nom's convincing rebuttals to all counterarguments raised. Also, Delete because no schools are notable! :) Xtifr tälk 11:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it seems as though everything wrong with this article is that it's incomplete. So why are we here yapping about it? ST47Talk 12:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the point if we can't find WP:RS and WP:V then we don't have enough to write an accurate article. And inaccurate articles should get deleted. Arbusto 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per Fram and WP:V. I believe this one is noteworthy, but that's no good if we can't verify through independent sources, and it seems as if we can't. Shimeru 23:42, 12 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.