Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American World University

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American World University was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

This article went through VfD before, but was significantly rewritten towards the end of the VfD process. It then became the subject of a request for undeletion, which I performed (votes were 6-4 favoring undeletion). I am resubmitting the article for consideration here, but expressing no opinion on whether the rewrite should save it from deletion. --Michael Snow 00:46, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/American World University/archive for the original VFD. anthony 警告 01:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • My vote is to keep. Useful information and no valid reason for deletion. anthony 警告 01:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Puff piece (doesn't even mention that it's unaccredited) on something that wasn't notable to begin with. Ambi 01:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The version that I saw had this information, but it appears to have been removed. That's certainly no reason to delete. anthony 警告 05:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. Much better than as originally submitted, but I believe that the intent of the original submission was promotional and that the new article still is. "There is no such thing as bad publicity." This university is notable only for being an "Internet bucket shop". And the article is still too kind, I believe I will go NPOV-it a little more in case it gets kept. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, at least that's helped get a stub started on the former Indonesian Vice-President who "graduated" from this university. --Michael Snow 03:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What is POV is deleting an article because it is about something which Wikipedians aren't supportive of. Notoriety should be just as important as fame (and neither should be important at all, in my opinion). I wonder what the vote will be like when someone makes an article on the unaccredited Wikiversity. anthony 警告 05:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Red herring. Wikiversity won't be pretending to offer "degrees", nor will it be charging for anything. Ambi 13:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • No, it's not a red herring, it's precisely my point. You're judging the morality of the subject to determine whether or not to keep an article about it. anthony 警告 13:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: I actually think it's fairly NPOV. It presents the other side of the argument, points out that at least one state has sued it for fraudulently claiming to be a university. I would prefer still less dewey-eyed prose at the outset, but it passes muster for me, barely. Geogre 02:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Claiming that articles are inheirently NPOV merely because they provide publicity (merely by providing information) would result in far too many articles being excluded. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:45, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Looking at the article again, I'm impressed. Awesome improvements, people. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:52, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The place is a freakin' diploma mill, and a separate entry gives it legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
    • Looks like the above vote was made by User:Calton. --L33tminion | (talk) 04:03, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia, Calton. --L33tminion | (talk) 04:05, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Whoops, sorry about that. This thing is still new for me. --Calton 13:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Inclusion is not endorsement.Dr Zen 05:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Again, I repeat, "there is no such thing as bad publicity." For example, now that it looks as if we might keep the article, is it appropriate for me to un-link the AWU web page, or is it going to just have to sit there, increasing AWU's Google pagerank and helping it in its business competition with other diploma mills? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Ambi 13:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • It's going to sit there increasing AWU's Google pagerank. That's google's problem, not ours. You have no right to censor information on a subject just because you don't like what that subject is saying. anthony 警告 13:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Keep. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain again. I am unsure if fake^H^H^H^Hnonaccredited Universities should be considered notable. I'm beginning to lean towards no, but am not yet convinced enough to vote that way. --Improv 13:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • This is a good reason why using non-notability as the sole reason for deletion is a fundamentally flawed concept. anthony 警告 14:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like participants in this discussion to take a look at how I've presented external references in this version. I thought it was a fairly good idea, which preserves all information both visibly and textually (in the Wiki-markup) without lending Wikipedia to promotional use. Continue this discussion in Talk:American World University. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No point in not having Wikipedia articles about some subjects just because we don't choose to. Rework a bit more - the initial "claims" isn't NPOV despite being most likely quite accurate. Also, what's with the jpg extlinks? zoney ♣ talk 14:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it.
  • Delete. smells of personal crusade. AWU may deserve a line in a List of bogus universities, but that's about it. dab 15:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is there a page on unaccredited institutions
  • Hardly a crusade. I'm not seeking to promote or hurt anything. I'm very happy that the article has become far more critical than my original rewrites, as it is now a better article. I have taken a personal interest in this article, but that is merely because I have put some work into it and don't want to see it deleted. I do think this is a legitimate article. --L33tminion | (talk) 20:03, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • As it stands, there are plenty of diploma mills in this country; some of them have caused more of a ruckus than others; i.e. some of these mills have been in the newsmedia before for giving someone important a degree they didn't deserve (I seem to recall The Swan's "therapist" being berated for getting a diploma from a diploma mill. My point is, if a high profile case against this university can be brought to life, I'd vote keep. As it stands, the only example sounds like some random shmuck who got duped. At this point, I'm abstaining, and just leaving these comments here. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 17:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia can provide a valuable NPOV public service to those who might be snowed by a diploma mill's slick website. One note: accreditation by itself does in any way mean a place isn't bogus. These places often set up their own accreditation organizations that are just as hollow as the institutions. -- Decumanus 18:14, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. Decently famous. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:40, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • As it stands now, I can't see how one can say this article gives the "University" any legitimacy; it says right away it's a diploma mill. If there's no such thing as bad publicity then I guess 60 Minutes did a similar organization (the now defunct Hamilton University) a favor by doing an exposé on it. If we supply no link to its homepage we don't help its google rank, but can still supply information on this institution, and maybe prevent people from being duped by it. Most people who "enroll" in these "universities" know exactly what they're doing, but some naive souls actually think these are real online colleges, and their degrees will have merit. Those who want to buy a diploma will do so from this place or another, regardless of our article. I don't see this article as an endorsement any more than I see the advance fee fraud article as one. However, I'm inclined to think that the first sentences should read that it's an "alleged educational institution". So to sum it up: weak keep. -R. fiend 18:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unsure. It's a damning exposé, but as an article I'd say borderline at best. Not convinced it's encyclopedic, but perhaps it's easier to keep it than to deal with repeated recreations by the promoters. No vote as yet. Andrewa 21:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's useful for prospective "students" about to be fleeced for a worthless piece of pretty paper. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 22:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: notable diploma mill. The opening paragraph needs to be reworked for clarity. Article needs to be watched for POV edits and vandalism, but what notable or controversial subject doesn't, really? -Sean Curtin 01:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, we have pages on Nigerian Money Scams and Ponzi schemes. I think they serve both as information and as warnings. This page is no different. Inky 01:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; especially notable diploma mill involved in the intrigues of a notable Indonesian Vice President and Presidential candidate. If Al Gore were ever accused of inflating his credentials, we'd sure as heck have an article about it... (And if he hadn't invented the Internet, would it be on WikiTelex?) :p Samaritan 06:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_World_University&oldid=1089102775"