| Revision as of 10:17, 28 October 2006 editEmeraude (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers82,429 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:28, 28 October 2006 edit undoLeuko (talk | contribs)Rollbackers22,563 edits repliesNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :: '''Comment''': What I was saying was that it presented a more accurate view than the article originally posted by someone associated with the school - take a look through the page history. In any case, I still feel we should keep the article per Aaron's suggestion of duty to warn. Without independent fact finding, students may be duped into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their life attending a fraudulent school. ] 03:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | :: '''Comment''': What I was saying was that it presented a more accurate view than the article originally posted by someone associated with the school - take a look through the page history. In any case, I still feel we should keep the article per Aaron's suggestion of duty to warn. Without independent fact finding, students may be duped into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their life attending a fraudulent school. ] 03:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::: I know that it presents an accurate view because '''I''' was the one who made those original changes about its accreditation status. I don't see how its notable; its an article about what it isn't (accredited). Even if this article is deleted, like other diploma mills, it will remain on our ] to let people know it isn't accredited. ] 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | ::: I know that it presents an accurate view because '''I''' was the one who made those original changes about its accreditation status. I don't see how its notable; its an article about what it isn't (accredited). Even if this article is deleted, like other diploma mills, it will remain on our ] to let people know it isn't accredited. ] 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::'''Comment''': If it is notable enough to be on the list of unaccredited institutions, then isn't it notable enough to have a blue link instead of a red link? ] 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''''' <font color="#CC6600">AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.</font>'''''<br><small> Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ] 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)<small><!-- from Template:Relist --> | :''''' <font color="#CC6600">AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.</font>'''''<br><small> Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ] 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)<small><!-- from Template:Relist --> | ||
| *'''Delete''' non-notable unaccredited school with a virtually contentless article. ] 02:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' non-notable unaccredited school with a virtually contentless article. ] 02:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''': I find Leuko's argument convincing. ] 06:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''': I find Leuko's argument convincing. ] 06:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' Stammer is a new user. ] 07:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | :*'''Comment''' Stammer is a new user. ] 07:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::'''Comment''': And you feel that makes his/her opinion less worthy? If you are worried that it is me agreeing with myself, I invite you to do a checkuser. Perhaps we should entertain the notion that the nominator is associated with the school and wishes to remove what they consider negative press. ] 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. Misplaced Pages is a spam heaven for these dodgy operations, they can look like a real school on first glance. --] | ] 07:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom. Misplaced Pages is a spam heaven for these dodgy operations, they can look like a real school on first glance. --] | ] 07:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Comment''': Within the first sentence, the word "unaccredited" is used - I fail to see how someone could be confused. ] 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' Agree with Djartung. However, if the article is kept how about including in bold at the top a warning that it's an unaccredited diploma mill and locking the entry permanently so it can't be altered. ] 10:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Agree with Djartung. However, if the article is kept how about including in bold at the top a warning that it's an unaccredited diploma mill and locking the entry permanently so it can't be altered. ] 10:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:28, 28 October 2006
American Global University School of Medicine
Unnotable, unaccredited school. Claims to be based in Latin America with headquarters in Ohio. I get 119 yahoo hits. Arbusto 20:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The only time an unaccredited "college" should get a Misplaced Pages article is when they're so well-known that the public deserves a warning. --Aaron 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete What Aaron said goes triple for medical schools. Edison 20:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Per the proposed WP:SCHOOL guidelines, all post-secondary educational institutions are inherently notable. Also, the school is advertising quite heavily and untruthfully on sites frequented by those interested in international medical education (for example: . This article should serve to highlight the truths regarding the school. There are a number of other articles which started out as blatant advertising for the school, but due to the hard work of editors, ended up presenting a more balanced view. Examples: St Matthews University and St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. Leuko 22:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you should be voting keep based on the hope that a more balanced view will be presented. As you said it is "advertising quite heavily and untruthfully", but that's not really a reason to keep. Arbusto 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: What I was saying was that it presented a more accurate view than the article originally posted by someone associated with the school - take a look through the page history. In any case, I still feel we should keep the article per Aaron's suggestion of duty to warn. Without independent fact finding, students may be duped into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their life attending a fraudulent school. Leuko 03:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- I know that it presents an accurate view because I was the one who made those original changes about its accreditation status. I don't see how its notable; its an article about what it isn't (accredited). Even if this article is deleted, like other diploma mills, it will remain on our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning to let people know it isn't accredited. Arbusto 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If it is notable enough to be on the list of unaccredited institutions, then isn't it notable enough to have a blue link instead of a red link? Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- I know that it presents an accurate view because I was the one who made those original changes about its accreditation status. I don't see how its notable; its an article about what it isn't (accredited). Even if this article is deleted, like other diploma mills, it will remain on our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning to let people know it isn't accredited. Arbusto 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: What I was saying was that it presented a more accurate view than the article originally posted by someone associated with the school - take a look through the page history. In any case, I still feel we should keep the article per Aaron's suggestion of duty to warn. Without independent fact finding, students may be duped into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their life attending a fraudulent school. Leuko 03:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Arbusto 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
- Delete non-notable unaccredited school with a virtually contentless article. Opabinia regalis 02:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: I find Leuko's argument convincing. Stammer 06:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Stammer is a new user. Arbusto 07:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: And you feel that makes his/her opinion less worthy? If you are worried that it is me agreeing with myself, I invite you to do a checkuser. Perhaps we should entertain the notion that the nominator is associated with the school and wishes to remove what they consider negative press. Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Misplaced Pages is a spam heaven for these dodgy operations, they can look like a real school on first glance. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Within the first sentence, the word "unaccredited" is used - I fail to see how someone could be confused. Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Djartung. However, if the article is kept how about including in bold at the top a warning that it's an unaccredited diploma mill and locking the entry permanently so it can't be altered. Emeraude 10:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)