Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol University (California)


 * 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The result was keep (withdrawn by nominator; consensus was to keep). MastCell Talk 01:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Bristol University (California)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, minor, for-profit college with accreditation issues. A WP:BEFORE check shows one (1) reliable source that mentions the school, failing GNG and ORG. Article was deprodded citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which has been deprecated as an XFD argument. James (talk/contribs) 23:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn. I thank for finding sources to meet GNG. James (talk/contribs) 00:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete -- Nominator doesn't like the school. That's not a reason for deletion. It needs to be merged to redirected to tell the story of the small, for-profit university. Otherwise there will be a run on schools like Okan International University. Rhadow (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

*Hello James -- I don't particularly care whether this article stays or goes. It should be REDIRECTED somewhere valuable. I do observe that you have not provided a single Wikipedia reason for deletion. It's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Losing a court case is not a reason. Topeka Public Schools has an article. Being bankrupt is not a reason. Enron has an article. Being a crummy school is not a reason. Stanford University has an article. Having a broken website is not a reason. Equifax has an article. Being for-profit is not a reason. University of Phoenix has an article. If a high school is presumed notable, then I wonder why a university with a twenty-five year history is not. Rhadow (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Question The school's website doesn't even work as of this moment. Considering the scarce sources, is this actually a school (even a for-profit one) or a diploma mill? &#32;DocumentError (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether the school is a "diploma mill" or not is probably a matter of perspective. James (talk/contribs) 14:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and answer to above question: The school clearly exists, or at least did exist. Their athletics website is here . They played sports in the USCAA, it appears the 2016 season may have been their last. They played several of NCAA Division 1 teams in sports (here's a sports illustrated box score against Utah for an example . There are plenty of more in-depth sports stories, ,,,. These doesn't show that the school was a threat to the PAC-10 athletically, nor the ivy league academically, merely that it existed and competed with well-known degree-granting schools, all of which have articles. Paragons of education, probably not. Athletic powerhouse, no. But this was a degree-granting institution that at one time had 16 athletic teams. There is a longstanding tradition of keeping degree granting institutions and even high schools unless there isn't even evidence they exist.Jacona (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Press releases by competitors in guaranteed games, an article in a school paper, and a box score do not in sum meet GNG or ORG. James (talk/contribs) 14:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The university did win its case against the accrediting agency. Federal Judge Anthony Trenga believes the school exists . Sprinter Stirley Jones went to Bristol, according to the Orange County Register. BU is probably closed now, but I like the website that announces, "The Bears men's soccer team wins the first game in school history!" Rhadow (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They lost on appeal. James (talk/contribs) 14:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. Per my original nomination, I believe the article subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Being a small, for-profit, unaccredited college is more likely to indicate that this institution does not have the significant coverage required to exist on Wikipedia. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable". I never mentioned the status of this school's webpage, and I shared the status of the school's lawsuit in order to ensure editors had a complete picture of the institution, not as an inherent argument. All that being said, I would not be opposed to redirecting to For-profit higher education in the United States or similar. James (talk/contribs) 18:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not accurate to cite that quote to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES when what is quoted is not the text of Schooloutcomes but a quote from a disputed RfC and the quote is taken out of context in a way that changes the meaning. What WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES actually quotes from the Rfc nutshell is, "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

From WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.

It sounds to me like a university makes it into the book. In this case, however, the school should be specifically excluded because it has a bad accountant, webmaster, lawyer, and soccer team. Rhadow (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The fact that the website is down, does not look good. I think at least wait for website to comeback and then it can be reconsidered. In addition, I saw several online reviews calling this school a scam! Expertwikiguy (talk) 2:22 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Expertwikiguy, are you saying that an article needs an active website to be notable under wikipedia policy? So basically anything that ever existed, but is defunct should be struck from the encyclopedia? Could you point us to any Wikipedia policy that demonstrates that in any way please? Have you read WP:BEFORE and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions?Jacona (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No I am not saying that. What I am saying while the website does not exists, we cannot verify if this school exists and also to check website for information that may be necessary to make a decision to keep them. So what I am saying is that until the website comes back we would not be able to make a better decision, so until that time, I am voting to delete. Just my opinion. It's my vote to Delete. Expertwikiguy (talk) 7:22 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What? -- "While the website does not exist, we cannot verify if this school exists." Are you kidding? Rhadow (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Expertwikiguy, thanks for sharing your opinion.Jacona (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In any case, Expertwikiguy, the website can be viewed at the archive: if you would like. Jacona (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has now been considerably expanded, with at least 15 sources in the article and more here. The school is shown to have existed for over 20 years, has competed against the highest level of competition athletically, has stumbled on hard times, and has been shuttered. And although it has nothing to do with policy, the archive of the school website can be accessed from the article for Expertwikiguy's viewing pleasure. The school had 280 students in 2014, and over the course of 20 years it would have totaled several thousand students.
 * Keep Yes, the Orange County Register thinks Bristol University no longer exists, but that is far different than it having never existed. They played Utah Valley University (which no one in the know ever calls just "Utah"), in a game that seems to have generated little if any coverage. Nothing spectacular, and if they were in a line of business other than education, we probably would delete. However we have special rules for educational institutions, and if a place fielded even supper-sub par teams in intercollegiate play, they will pass notability, even if the difference between them and a diploma mill is hard to gauge. Considering some of the classes offered at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, they seem to have also been a diploma mill, but no one has suggested we delete that article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Inside Higher Education provided some coverage of the case. I think that makes the keep even stronger. I feel this relies too much on primary sources, but that is not a reason to delete, especially since it is clear there are secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has multiple reliable sources so the subject clearly passes WP:N. This will never be more than a minor, short article but that is no reason to delete it. ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Article satisfies WP:V#Notability, which requires one third-party source, and this information plus WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not circular reasoning.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this university has several negative reviews online, what is the Wiki policy on adding Yelp as a reference and mentioning this? Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - qualifies for an article as it was a University, even if it eventually went bankrupt. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2018 (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.