Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific International 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The result was keep – nomination withdrawn. KrakatoaKatie 20:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific International University

Pacific International University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Originally considered a diploma mill and the object of some discussion on that score as well as notability, per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORG. The institution fails Wikipedia notability standards due, in part, to a lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject [1]. A check of Google and the various other search mechanisms shows that the institution no longer exists as described in the article. Google shows 571 hits at the moment, a few of which reference Wikipedia articles, and most of which, so far, reference other sites that reference the institution in vague terms [2] In fact, another institution of the same name, with an entirely different curriculum, seems to have taken its place.. - Nascentatheist 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The fact that it was (or is) a diploma mill or fails to meet one editors arbitrary Google Hit criteria is an exceedingly poor basis for deletion. Ample reliable and verifiable sources, independent of the subject, have been provided to satisfy the [{Wikipedia:Notability]] standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 06:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Being a diploma mill might be morally objectionable, but it doesn't constitute grounds for deletion when WP:N, WP:V, and neutrality are all met. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Hardly a speedy keep; being defunct or being a diploma mill are not reasons for deletion, but a lack of anything substantial to say on the subject may be. Contra User:Alansohn, the main source is the university's website. The talk.origins post is primarily about Carl E. Baugh, and the citation to the Australian University Quality Agency is a 1-paragraph mention in a laundry list of similar institutions, and probably isn't even the same school (that one seems to have been founded in Melbourne). The pamphlet from the United States Council for Higher Education Accreditation does not mention Pacific International University at all. GNews archive search [3] doesn't find any additional non-trivial coverage on which to base this article. cab 06:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source better Important to have since two biographies link to it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Universities are generally considered notable, and that's not because of their Ghits. These kinds of articles are valuable sources of information, and I'm not convinced that there's a policy violation. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - accredited universities are generally considered notable yes, but that's not what we're dealing with here. KTC 10:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If I start a new unaccredited institution of higher learned headquartered in my back yard, then no, it probably shouldn't have an article. But in this case, the school being unaccredited is just a trivial detail (from our POV). It is a result of the mechanics, not the notability, of the school. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —KTC 09:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think the fact that it isn't accredited is one of the reasons it should be kept. Looks like an interesting article on a Diploma mill, and as per Bfigura, might be objectionable, but this isn't any reason to delete it. Pursey 11:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Where are these "ample reliable and verifiable sources?" I couldn't find them, and I won't mind at all if someone else can and points them out and, at least in part, expose the flaws in my "abritrary Google Hit criteria." What I found were half a thousand hits on "Pacific International University," the majority of which, as far as I could tell from a survey, were not about the "institution," at all, or they were about some entirely different institution. Quite a few others were citations on lists of schools and they are, of course, useless as sources of information. The hit count provided some evidence that the institution no longer exists; and low and often-arbitrarily determined hit counts are often used as at least partial justification for deletion of an article. Hit count was not, by itself, a reason for the suggestion to delete. The argument for deletion, aside from the general lack of reliable, independent sources, rested mostly on the apparent disappearance of the institution, and not on the allegation that it was a diploma mill (good luck finding any evidence that I have advocated the deletion of a school for that reason - I think we all need to know about diploma mills and Wikipedia is as good a place as any to keep information on them). That it no longer exists seems to be a good argument for not having an article about it, as a component of a larger issue called information literacy. Non-existence of a previously, mostly-unknown diploma mill strikes me as a point for non-notability. Yes, there are lots of things in the human experience that no longer exist and remain notable (e.g., the Persian Empire), but Pacific International University isn't one of them. I would also add that having a couple of other articles on the site that link to an article subject to deletion does not make the subject of the deletion notable. Yes, I know all about Carl Baugh, having actually encountered him, but notability isn't generally inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED says, "Parent notability should be established independently."), not in the real world, anyway. Finally, I would add that, yes, universities are generally notable, even if it seems like they're springing up like 7-11s, these days, but this one wasn't really a university in the commonly-understood sense.

• Having written all of that, I again state that I understand that the spirit of Wikipedia is community and consensus, so if the consensus is to "keep," I'm sure I'll sleep just fine. However, it was pretty obvious that I needed to clarify my reasons for the nomination. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep diploma mills are just as notable because they're just as much a part of the real world, just as any other dubiously ethical enterprise. And its just as important for an encyclopedia to have the articles. If there's enough information to write the article, it does not matter if it has had only a shadowy existence .DGG (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Withdraw nomination, and I will conduct a review of the Wikipedia standards for these kinds of situations before I make another nomination of this sort, as my understanding doesn't seem to be in line with that of the community. It's pretty clear to me that, in some areas, I have a pretty clear view of these kinds of issues but, in this sort of case, as it was with Kearny High School, my understanding could use some remedial reading and review. So, if we could withdraw the nomination, that will keep me from wasting any more of the community's time. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 08:56, 7 September 2007 (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.