Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University

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The result was Nomination withdrawn.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Clements University and St Clements University

Non-notable diploma mill. This school is NOT accredited and cannot be verified per WP:V and WP:RS. Website claims that are "accredited" by members of unrecognized "International Council for Open and Distance Education," but this an accreditation mill and the website displays false information regarding its recognition.

  1. The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization lists St. Clements University as unaccredited.[1]
  2. St. Clements is called a "degree mill" by List of non-accredited colleges/ universities by State of Maine (see listing 564)
  3. A "who is" check shows this Carribean school's address is a PO Box in AUSTRALIA with an IP in that country (prices in US dollars).
  4. Delete per the St. Clements University's description, "As a commercial university, St Clements role in education is to assist candidates obtain the qualifications they need."[2] This ad fails notablity per WP:CORP and WP:V.
  5. "St Clements University" gets 340 yahoo hits with the majority of hits being promotion in online forums. Arbusto 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Also delete similiar article St Clements University. Arbusto 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep and withdrawal nomination with the good work of TheronJ. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussions moved to talk page. Arbusto 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is not an editor's responsibility to go out of their way to verify an article, notability needs to be provided by the author Guyanakoolaid 09:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What does notability have to do with this discussion? Also, we should make it our responsibility.Bagginator 09:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply What does notability have to do with this discussion? Everything! And I have better things to do with my time than check accreditation for diploma mills trying to prove legitimacy through wikipedia. From WP:V: 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.Guyanakoolaid 09:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Final comment for now I contacted IFA and asked them to provide verifiable evidence of accreditation for St. Clements University. Hopefully I will receive a response before this AfD is finalized and we can know for a certainty one way or the other.Bagginator 10:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: 1) No legitmate (Cambridge, Oxford, UL, UK, IE) accredited British institution appears on the lists. 2) Three state agencies note they are unaccredited. 3) We have NO WP:V on what this is. 4) No notablity is offer with WP:RS. 5) One US state government called this a diploma mill. Arbusto 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is one good reason for keeping these sham institutions: since Wikipedia has such a high google ranking, anyone looking for information can see the WP page and learnt that it is, indeed, an unaccredited diploma mill since it's page will appear as # 2 or 3 probably. They can then further find out what a Diploma mill is by following the links and, if truly ambitious, discover the entire shady world of such "institutions." That said, Wikipedia is not here to provide caveat emptor services and this place should be expunged. I should know: I have a Master's degree in "Life Experience." Eusebeus 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Even weirder, it appears that last year they were based in Namibia. Currently I'm on the fence, but if we can produce a good article with verifiable information, I think it should be kept. If somebody cleans this up so the article is an accurate portrayal of their dubiousness, I'm all for a keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane for the kind of turnaround I'm thinking of. William Pietri 02:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - 1,830 google hits. Educational institutions are notable. --Ineffable3000 03:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What WP:V source do you have that it is an educational institution? Arbusto 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Look here. It is an educational institution. Even though it is not accredited, it is still an educational institution. --Ineffable3000 21:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • How is that a source to prove it is an educational institution? That's a bio of a person who claims a degree. Someone from Africa in a position of power with a fake degree isn't new. For example, Riek Machar (VP of Southern Sudan) in this Dec 2005 Sudan Tribune article states Machar "Received Doctorate from University of Bedford, England in 1984." The problem is no such school exists called University of Bedford, which was a diploma mill operation that would predate the degrees it sold. Arbusto 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - Diploma mills are notable too. Leave the page and state that it might be a potential diploma mill. --Ineffable3000 03:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment: It is notable? Does it meet WP:V? Those are reasons for keep, and no sources have been convincing of that. Arbusto 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable. Doesn't meet WP:V. --Ineffable3000 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per well-researched nom. Note that 1150 general Ghits for "st. clements university" boils down to 213 distinct hits, including some odd ones for "Superior Moulding". Fails WP:CORP for lacking the usual third-party non-trivial articles, no awards, no... oh never mind. Tychocat 12:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep St. Clements University and delete and redirect St Clements University. First, as a general matter, the university is notable to anyone who's considering getting a degree from them, or to anyone who sees a St. Clements degree on a resume, and we should keep the page as a resource for them. Second, under WP:CORP, it's notable because it's been discussed by John Bear in his book and by at least three US states, which should qualify as "consumer watchdog organizations" in this context. It's true that it's a scam, but that's all the more reason to preserve the information. TheronJ 14:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I should have pointed that I've added some sources to St. Clements University. I encourage people to take another look at the page. TheronJ 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added some more links to the St. Clements University page. It still needs some polishing, but I think it's a notable non-accredited university. (For example, it turns out to be Senator Kim Carr's favorite example of a degree mill during Australian Senate hearings). TheronJ 15:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Good work. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with TheronJ. If we are going to do lists such as List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning that include this school, then I would think we would need articles on the components of said lists - in fact it is a quasi-requirement of wikipedia list guidelines[3]. This nom is a frequent contributor to various diploma mill lists [4] , but wants this deleted because it is a "non-notable diploma mill" and "can not be verified". If that is true, what is the point of listing it? Why are we doing lists of diploma mills (all of which are by definition more or less "non-notable" and unverifiable) in the first place? --JJay 19:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually TheronJ did major cleaning it up and kindly contacted me my talk about the changes. Don't personalize matters with vague inferences based on false assumptions. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not sure what you mean by "false assumptions" or "personalize matters" since I merely quoted from your deletion nomination. Please review the list guideline page linked above. --JJay 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TheronJ, thanks for doing the hard work. Wikipedia could use more editors like you. Bagginator 01:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with a gold star for TheronJ and his fantastic cleanup. This is the best possible outcome of an AfD. William Pietri 06:27, 15 September 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.