Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Vandenbosch


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. This discussion hinges on two issues. First, whether the former Kaplan, current Purdue Global is a "major academic institution". Second, does sourcing exist that allows her to meet NBASIC.

I read the discussion as saying "no", to both questions, and see consensus for a delete close at this time.

That said, terms like "degree mill" are inappropriate here. Per our own article Diploma mill, there is no case to use that pejorative term towards an institution with proper accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission. Courcelles (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Betty Vandenbosch

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Inability to establish notability, heavy reliance on primary sourced materials, lack of reliable secondary sources Ushistorygeek (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still debate on whether or not her academic post was at a major academic instittuion and whether or not coverage on this subject represents SIGCOV or are just press releases about job changes. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Management,  and Canada. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 01:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 01:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: President and Chancellor of a University, satisfies WP:PROF #6. Pam  D  08:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Doubtful that a private for-profit college and an online school are considered a satisfactory for NPROF#6. Curbon7 (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - in 2018, Purdue University Global was described as "Purdue's newly rebranded version of online Kaplan University" (Journal & Courier opinion) after Purdue buys for-profit Kaplan University for $1, plans to make it public (USAToday, 2017, "Kaplan will continue to run the university, collecting 12.5% of the new school's revenue for 30 years"). The available coverage does not appear to support 'major academic institutions' per WP:NPROF#6. I also found some coverage of Vandenbosch promoting Coursera, e.g. 2021 (CNBC, "Make it" section), 2021 (InsideHigherEd), 2022 (The Hindu), but there does not appear to be independent, in-depth support for WP:BASIC notability and a way to write much more than a CV at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2017 USA Today report includes quotes describing Kaplan as "a bottom-feeding operation" (the American Association of State Colleges and Universities’ Barmak Nassirian), and "predatory" ("Bob Shireman, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning Washington, D.C., think tank"). Beccaynr (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with PamD. This is a university president/CEO of large educational companies. There's a lot of room for interpretation in the phrase "major academic institution" (32,000 students?). This is not the indepth coverage that Beccaynr seeks, but sources should include 1, 2. Jaireeodell (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note the individual was President of the private Kaplan University during a period when the organization was owned by for-profit Graham Holdings. Would that quality as "major"? Following the purchase transaction with the Purdue University System she become Chancellor, reporting to a University President. Ushistorygeek (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: To me, the "major academic institution" criterion does not refer to how many students an institution has, but the degree of research that occurs at the institution. Institutions classified as R1 and R2, which can be seen by this list, are thus good to go (an exception would be liberal arts institutions like Smith College, which should be assessed differently, but that's tangential). As such, the president/chancellor of a couple of online schools would not satisfy the criterion. Curbon7 (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * R1 and R2 are indicators of a university's research activity, but even at many R1's that activity is seldom the measure of the money, hours, and people invested in the students. I agree that R1 and R2 are marks of "major" research universities, but a poor fit for the broader subject of "major" academic institutions. I'm not a fan of for-profit degree mills, but they are large and they are "academic" institutions. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * delete I disagree that we should consider degree mills, regardless of their size, as "major academic institutions." Conferring degrees for $$ is not the same as educational impact. Lamona (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lamona I think we're making adjectives like "major" and "significant" do a lot of work that opens us up to biases based on cultural notions of what is and isn't worthy of notice in higher education. In my reading of WP:PROF #6, the policy is not specific enough to not include a notable university, like Purdue University Global. PUG may or may not be perceived to be a for-profit scam, but it is accredited, it is large, and it does receive support from taxpayers. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jaireeodell, of course we are working with our cultural assumptions. An encyclopedia is about as cultural as you can get. When a policy says "major academic institution" it is asking you to apply what you know in interpreting that. What I know is that I don't consider Purdue/Kaplan a major university, although I could consider it under guidelines for corporations. However, in spite of the institutional questions, the only sources we have about her are press release type announcements as she's gone from one job to another. There are also mentions in articles about an institution or project. This does not add up to notability. If you have any substantial sources, please post. Lamona (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. The article's own admission that "In 2021, Purdue Global ranked 389th out of 391 schools in the Washington Monthly list of national universities, with a social mobility ranking of 390th out of 391 schools" doesn't add up to "major academic institution". Athel cb (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: per meeting WP:PROF #6 as the former president of a "significant accredited college or university." While controversial, Kaplan and Purdue Global are both prominent accredited universities with significant name recognition. She is also the author of a notable book which received multiple scholarly reviews. She doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR for that alone, but I believe it contributes to her notability. TJMSmith (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No matter which way this closes, I feel like there should be a further discussion (RfC?) on what makes an institution "major" for the purposes of #6. Curbon7 (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. That would be helpful. TJMSmith (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.