Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American World University/archive

American World University
POV screed. RickK 00:29, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. Doesn't appear to be a diploma mill, though. Gazpacho 00:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Looks like an end-of-term evaluation. Mash note.  Geogre 01:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, it does appear to be a diploma mill, and quite a notable (or notorious?) one, or at least part of a notorious network of diploma mills. See:, . It seems as if the Maxine Asher mentioned in the text is a rather important player in the diploma mill business; apparently she runs her own accreditation agency as well. Provided it is the same woman, she is also a published "Atlantis researcher"... / up+land 14:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll have to vote delete here. As I indicated above, somebody could probably write something interesting on this "Dr" Asher and her diploma mill business, but the present text is not worth keeping for that eventuality. / up+land 11:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain. At the very least, this needs to be completely rewritten. I agree that universities are inherently notable, but I'm not certain if the university must be accredited to count. Thoughts? (I am assuming this place is not accredited). --Improv 16:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with you that universities are notable and should be included. I voted delete on the basis that a rewrite that leaves not a single word in place is the same thing as a delete, and I couldn't see a single word in this article, including the particles and conjunctions, remaining in place.  Even if this is a self-accredited university (hinted by Uppland), it should have an entry as a diploma mill.  It's just that this is not even salvagable by Clean Up.  Geogre 18:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I'm not even sure that nonaccredited universities merit an entry. I'm not sure that they don't either, although I might lean, based on their numbers and how easy they are to create, towards thinking that they don't. I am open to be persuaded either way, so if anyone cares to make an argument, I'll listen (on my talk page, please) --Improv 21:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete POVed.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 02:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete testimonial. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete A very non-NPOVed testimonial to a dubious institution. Merenta 23:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fix If it's POV, fix it. Looks like the editor did not understand Wikipedia, but still, don't bite the N00bs.  I'm creating a valid stub for now.  --L33tminion | (talk) 05:38, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rewritten. I'm dissapointed that no one did so earlier.  --L33tminion | (talk) 06:06, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * What?! How could any responsible admin delete this when there wasn't one vote after what amounted to a total rewrite?!  --L33tminion | (talk) 16:04, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's still an open question as to if non-accredited institutions are notable. I could see myself voting either way. --Improv 18:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I can see myself voting delete still. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 21:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)