Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian International College of Art


 * 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 Adam Cuerden talk 12:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Australian International College of Art

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to fail WP:CORP, non notable, created by username that suggests COI a year ago and little modified since. Orderinchaos 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Orderinchaos 11:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - no reference to notability... seems like an advertisement. /Blaxthos 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm struggling to find enough to pass WP:V. Just 910 hits with largely first-party refs.  Adrian   M. H.  18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to me that not so long ago there was general consensus that post-secondary educational institutions are always notable. Has this changed? JulesH 20:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, if you can prove that consensus... Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But if it is not verifiable, which seems to be the case, why should it stay?  Adrian  M. H.  22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the general consensus, but is this actually a "post-secondary educational institution"? In Australia we have 38 universities and the TAFE system, this doesn't appear to fit under either. A page on a TAFE-level business college such as Alexander or Phoenix would almost certainly fail notability. Also note its webpage is at "aica.net.au", not "aica.edu.au" - it would appear to simply be a company which offers courses as I originally assumed. Orderinchaos 01:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I do not think we have ever decided on the basis that post-secondary institutions are assumed to be notable. I think we've assumed colleges and universities are notable. Personally, I would not consider that a junior college or a technical institute would be notable unless sources could be demonstrated--there is too much variation. This one might be, if sources could show it,  but others will just be trade schools. DGG 00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google News Archives shows some hits for this institution but on closer inspection they are either advertorial, student profiles or short mentions of events at the college. I would support keeping if there was third party coverage from reliable sources but there isn't. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom as WP:VSCA. As someone having a significant background in higher education, I have never heard of this institution before, and given the fact it has a .net.au means it's a company which does not qualify as an education institution in Australia (which has specific benchmarks for .edu.au domains). Thewinchester (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not an academic institution, fails WP:CORP as a company. The tour stuff sounds bogus to me. Zivko85 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is definitely a nationally approved post-secondary college, or "Registered Training Organisation".  Since the "ANTA Act 1992", Australia has a regulated system where institutions that used to be called "TAFE" must be registered as providing accredited courses.  This allows any organisation to become a "TAFE", but the courses offered must first be approved and "uploaded" into the national framework in order that other institutions can also offer the same course, and students can migrate between institutions to complete their courses.  AICA provides three courses at the Diploma level (RTO 2922; while those Diploma's are not part of a "training package", two of the accredited courses (39147QLD and 39148QLD) are also offered by other training providers.  While this is low for a training provider when compared to the state subsidised TAFE systems, I think we would do well to draw the line in Australia at "nationally accredited org offering diploma level courses that are also run by other training institutions" -- that discards a very large number of institutions that only offer part-time Cert I-IV courses and shops offering courses that nobody else runs.  RTOs 2921, 2923, 2924 and 2925 all fail that test.  If others think it is worthwhile, I'm happy to use a larger and more random sample size to arrive at a more conclusive estimate of what percentage of RTOs would be discarded by that threshold. John Vandenberg 00:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Being an approved institution under some Govt. Act does not confer notability by association. Using the logic of the above user opens the door to articles about every single small suburban hairdressing college, beauty school, trade union training company, or interest group providing such accredited courses being included. That's exactly what WP:CORP intends to stop by setting a reasonable bar for article inclusion. The article subject in question has not been the subject of secondary sources which meet the WP:RS standard. Could someone with Factiva access checks out the newspaper references that have now been cited within the article, and provide a considered opinion on if these are considered reliable secondary sources? Thewinchester (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My RTO threshold given above does not allow any RTO to be considered notable enough; I even gave a small sample of RTOs that would all fail. John Vandenberg 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Why doesn't it have a .edu.au then? Checked Factiva - 8 hits only, all of which are in the Courier Mail or Gold Coast Bulletin. All of the CM articles are in fact ads, written in magazine sections of the paper, with very similar wording to each other and giving the phone number and website and not even trying to use journalistic language. Note that TAFE campuses are generally not notable (although can be), but TAFE colleges (i.e. multicampus) generally are. The fact few have an article to this point is neither here nor there. Orderinchaos 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This company does fulfil the requirements of qld.edu.au as it is registered with the Queensland Training Recognition Council (not difficult); access to .edu.au for RTOs is much more difficult, as the state government must approve the courses under the state act (the QLD list). John Vandenberg 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is an increasing number of accredited, private post-secondary institutions. As people have generally agreed that consensus exists about these education institutions, this college falls under that category. Recurring dreams 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Winchester Savin Me 06:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks to Orderinchaos, who forwarded me the full text of the three entries cited within the article from Factiva. I have since stripped these from the article as they are blatant puff pieces which obviously were the result of some media or other communications being released by the primary source. I will happily provide the full text of these articles on request should you wish to see them for yourself and dispute the primary sources claim. Thewinchester (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2007 (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.