Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic International University (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Delete. The current article gives even less evidence of notability than the one deleted at the previous AfD. It is also odd, to say the least, to remove a speedy deletion tag with the edit summary "speedy declined, makes credible claim of significance" when the speedy deletion nomination was because it was a repost of a deleted article, not because of a lack of credible claim of significance. (I may say that I am also puzzled by "Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant"'s statement "I did not revert the addition of a speedy tag three times". There were three unambiguous reverts of the addition of that tag.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Atlantic International University
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NORG - No reliable, independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. Previously deleted in October, and no new coverage of this unaccredited "university". Per their own website: "ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY IS NOT ACCREDITED BY AN ACCREDITING AGENCY RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF EDUCATION." - all caps and emboldened on their website, seen here Wikipedia is not a place to advertise diploma mills.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete under criterion G4 - this diploma mill is no more notable than it was the last time it was up for deletion. astro (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  15:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  15:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not so much concerned about whether this institution is accredited, as whether it meets WP:GNG. I've only found brief mentions such as this, so I don't think it does. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete under criterion G4 - The article was nominated twice for CSD and was declined incorrectly both times by, a fairly new editor. The arguments he/she made for declining the CSD (here, here) were already made as part of the old AFD by a steady stream of canvassed editors or meatpuppets. It's a subversion of the deletion and consensus-building process. There's a reason behind CSD G4--it's called: let's not waste everyone's time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, not noteworthy and reads like a promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This article subject has coverage by numerous sources (4) that include Bloomberg and the state of Hawaii. Therefore the article subject crosses the threshold of notability and the article should be retained.  The University does have Accreditation from ASIC (Accreditation Service for International Colleges) for those editors who are questioning the accreditation. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have just read the report provided by the State of Hawaii. This "school" is mentioned specifically as an unaccredited institution, which has been subject to monetary sanction by the Consumer Protection Agency.  It does not mention CHEA, and does not support the statement it is attached to in the article.  The Bloomberg reference is merely a directory entry.  The Guardian article specifically outs this "school" as a diploma mill - their words, not mine.  There are no other sources, except the "school" itself.  If one were to write this article based on what the sources actually say, it would be an attack piece. And, for the record, ASIC itself has a checkered past, and its capacity to accredit such an institution is questionable, at best.  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There is relevant discussion at User_talk:Fouetté_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant (permalink). As mentioned by myself and Dr. Fleischman, in the old AfD no fewer than 53 incidental mentions comparable in quality to the current four sources were found, yet the consensus was still to delete. Furthermore, accreditation in and of itself is not ipso facto evidence of notability. Bloomberg has such an automatically generated profile about every company. The State of Hawaii source is a passing mention as an example of an unaccredited university which has been sanctioned for posing as an accredited one. It also concerns me that Fouetté reverted the addition of a speedy G4 tag 3 times despite an explicit request to let an admin make the determination of whether G4 applies. astro (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Astro, please get your facts straight before posting a false statement in this AFD. I did not revert the addition of a speedy tag three times. That statement by you is misleading. I declined the speedy one time. Someone incorrectly put a second speedy on the article after the speedy was declined. As I am sure you must know, if a speedy is declined the next course of action is usually to do a AFD on the article. I removed the speedy that had been placed incorrectly. My edit was then reverted and a speedy was back on the article for a third time. I reverted that edit. Subsequently another editor placed the article at AFD. Please drop the stick. I am concerned about you, Astro misrepresenting my actions in order to try and make some point. Please just drop it! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Administrators make the final call on speedy deletion candidates. While nonadmins can decline speedy tags under uncontroversial circumstances (and this is something I have done), there is established precedent that if the appropriateness of a tag is disputed, an admin should make the decision. In this case it was clearly an article which has been deleted via AfD and your declining the speedy was incorrect but I accept that it was done in good faith. However, rather than placing a template on the page and starting a discussion on the talk page, you chose to repeatedly remove the speedy tag after I disputed your decline, which was an inappropriate response given that I had specifically requested the opinion of the patrolling admin on the speedy deletion. astro (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I am puzzled that you are accusing me of trying to make a point or flogging a dead horse - I have no connection with this article or you at all, I am merely pointing out that your actions are not in line with policy and accepted practice. astro (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Well its no Upper State New York University, which was a fun hoax, but its not notable if it can't be shown to have a prayer of meeting WP:GNG. Any real college would have many articles profiling it, and for this one I can find none.  Not notable as a college or diploma mill.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:44, 22 April 2016 (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.