Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bircham International 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 Speedy keep, deletion rationale invalid per deletion policy. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bircham International University

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

According to the text in the article, the institution is involved in immoral activity. If it is true, it does not deserve to be an article under any category of educational institution in any standard encyclopedia. Plus I think, a bunch of ill information about anything is not a very nice article for an encyclopedia, it destroys the overall usual expectation for the readers. I think proving someone innocent or guilty is not wikipedia's responsibility. So the article should be deleted to avoid any controvertial content Pointchair 15:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikipedia must not shirk from controversy, and the article doesn't say anyone is being immoral. The question here should be, "are the cited sources reliable?" Xiner (talk, email) 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep an immoral activity is not a reason to delete this. Plently of sources for this article. One from Dr. John Bear's book, a newspaper mention by a former FBI agent involved in DipScam, 4 separate government agencies, and one mention at Quackwatch. The article is informative for employers or people looking for information about this "school." Arbustoo 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover the person who listed this for deletion is . He has never editted an article outside this "university" and it is an obiviously role account to remove criticism. Speedy keep and block user:Pointchair for bad faith. Arbustoo 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Genuine institution, this is not Conservapedia. Irides centi  17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Arbustoo et al. semper fictilis 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Above comments are rational, but not necessarily true. One can start editing with any article. The thing that dragged my attention is the note it had as mentioning it Imballaced. Plus something that is informative should be careful enough while criticizing, cause may be the information we have already in the article are not rootless, but there may be some other information about it that we don't know or we haven't prove wrong. We can only ensure a negative image after we abandone all the positive claims. As far as I have known, the institute is authorized to produce non-formal education according to Spanish law and also the information about the Spanish law mentioning its authority other than the ministry of education is also correct. If anyone can help by any correction to this information, that will be a solution too. Otherwise it might be unjust to keep the article that way. Ofcourse I felt sympathetic after I read the letter complaing about the article in its discussion page.Pointchair 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want a "correction" contact Michigan, Oregon, Maine, and Texas' agencies to remove Bircham off the lists and allow that Bircham's degrees are valid. Also contact the other organizations including UNESCO. The article is not imbalanced because it is either accredited or not. The government sources as NPOV as possible. It is illegal for people in many places (Germany, US states, etc) to attempt to use unaccredited degrees. It is vital to make the unaccredited status clear.
 * Pointchair is a role account trying to remove WP:RS that show Bircham is a questionable institution. Arbustoo 17:38, 18 March 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.