Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American City 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.  Sandstein  05:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

American City University

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This insitutution fails WP:N (WP:ORG) and WP:RS. I can find no independent sources covering it other than in passing. I already proded the article and it was deleted. It was undeleted earlier today and two sources added (one a link to its parent company, the other a link to a non-notable group it is affiliated with), so I am bringing it here. Novaseminary (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The editor who undeleted the article did add a news story that mentioned the institution. But the story only mentions this school in passing and confirms that it is a diploma mill. Novaseminary (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable. andy (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Last summer after this article was created, Orangemike and I discussed it on our talk pages, and at the time I was inclined toward deletion. I didn't see the recent PROD for the article (it wasn't on my watchlist and apparently wasn't posted on the "Schools" delsort list). However, after belatedly noticing the PROD and looking into the topic, I believe that the article is a keeper.  As a result of my edits today, the article now cites 7 different news media reports, plus several other sources, demonstrating plenty of independent published attention to American City University. The school was one of several that have received attention over time in connection with ongoing controversy over education law and diploma mills in Wyoming. Each of the individual unaccredited schools that used to operate in Wyoming has its own unique story -- some are completely defunct, and others have arisen in new locations (this appears to be one of the latter). Given ACU's interesting (and reasonably well-documented) history, the fact that it is still in business and advertising itself to prospective students (and, in fact, looks pretty good on its website), and its documented connections with Honolulu University and American Central University, I think the article is a worthwhile one for the encyclopedia to include -- and I expect that the article will expand over time. --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - for the reasons outlined in the excellent summary by Orlady. Outfits like this are notable even if not noble, and we need articles here on them every bit as the Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - None of the seven news pieces covers this institution significantly. This one (call it #1) only places the school on a list of unaccredited schools licensed in WY and makes no other mention. This one (call it #2) only mentions the school in passing ("Nearby, American City University occupies a couple of rooms in a building that once housed a brothel.") in an article focusing on another school. Number 3 is actually about the Victorian building formerly home to the school and notes only "Lately it was home to the Tivoli coffee shop on the first floor and American City University, an unaccredited distance-learning school, on the second floor." Number 4 also mentions the institution on a list of ten other unaccredited school in WY in an article actually about another school. Similarly, Number 5 only mentions the school as one of several diploma mills in an article about another school. Number 6 is about a law passed in WY, and merely lists the school as one of several unaccredited school operating in the state.
 * The only article that gives the school anything more than passing mention is Number 7. The article is about how WY became a haven for diploma mills. Here is the extent of the mention of this school: "He said American City University, based in Wyoming, once cooperated with the Singapore Management Training Center to offer an MBA program in Vietnam. Students lost thousands of dollars, according to Ashwill."
 * Taken together I do not think six fleeting mentions and one minor passage combine to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. None of the coverage focuses on the school, so I do not think the school (as shown so far or as could reasonably be expected to materialize) "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Interesting (and troubling), yes; Notable, no.
 * Perhaps this school could be mentioned in an article about diploma mills in WY (though they probably do not merit a mention in Unaccredited institutions of higher learning per WP:UNDUE and the other schools could be incorporated into that an redirected or added to this AfD.
 * Novaseminary (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, none of those sources is an in-depth article focused on this outfit, but Org also states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability," and I contend that the "multiple independent sources" test has been met. --Orlady (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is close. I would agree if most of the seven actually had blurbs (not even substantial discussion or as a main subject, just blurbs) rather than just entry on a list. That is, if there were four or five like Number 7 (preferably covering different aspects of the school), I would agree. The sentence after that which you just quoted is "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Multiple independent sources only trivially mentioning the subject alone don't get the subject there. Novaseminary (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here is an independent source covering it in focus, rather than just in passing. Cheyenne Herald, February 27, 2006. It also mentions this is a truly international university, with branches in 14 countries. Surely a university with branches in 14 countries is notable. :-) --GRuban (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GRuban. I've added that source to the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm not being (completely) facetious with the 14 countries bit. Here is a happy graduate of the branch in Dubai, and here is a (less happy) student with acquaintance with the Ukraine branch. I added a (Vietnamese) article about the Vietnam branch to the article directly, since it's substantial coverage, but really, this organization had an impact on resumes through a wide swathe of the world. That should be notable. --GRuban (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep   The actual intrinsic quality of the place is irrelevant to notability, and we have always tried to cover unaccredited colleges fin appropriate fullness, and to cover them fairly. If not covering them would cause them to disappear, i might feel differently, but we need to report on the world as it is, not as it ought to be. There's no point in pretending they;re not notable because we wish that was the case, and that is not a NPOV approach.   DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It meets the notability criteria for inclusion, as others have argued above. Just because it is not accredited does not mean that it is not notable. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Based on the newly found sources directly discussing this instiution in particular, I now think it meets WP:ORG. Novaseminary (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems ths OrLady doesn't have any evidence to support American City University was same as former American City University from Wyoming. There's not supporting document on this issue. Consci360 — Consci360 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It should be noted that after posting the above accusation, Consci360 vandalized the article extensively. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the most extensive vandalism by Consci360 was done just before posting the accusation. But the point is valid. --Orlady (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG after having all those sources added. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2010 (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.