Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Business College (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. Most of the keep arguments are procedural ones - consensus can change and while being spammy often isn't a deletion reason, lack of notability certainly is - and there is no notability guideline that states that degree-awarding institutions are notable solely because of this. And WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a notability guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Business College
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This spammy low-quality article attracts about 12 page views per day, but it's hung around as a blight on Wikipedia for years. It's time to put the article to rest. Here's why.

All colleges are presumed notable &mdash; including small for-profit career colleges &mdash; unless someone has investigated and found that the school fails WP:N. Well, I've investigated, and it looks like this school may indeed fail WP:N. The school definitely exists, and it definitely grants genuine diplomas, but I still don't think it's notable.

I glanced through some of the article's sources.


 * Mississauga.com is a community-journalism website which devotes lots of attention to routine coverage of local businesses. It's kind of like a weekly small-town newspaper, except that it's online.
 * Study Magazine and Top Choice Magazine may both be low-budget free magazines which exist mainly to sell ads.
 * The various accrediting bodies confirm that the school exists, but I'm not sure that they say much more about it.
 * Press-release websites, such as Newswire.ca website, are not acceptable for proving notability either.

I also did some searching. I think that significant coverage of the school may not exist in any reliable, independent sources.

Yes &mdash; all colleges are presumed notable, unless shown otherwise. However, now that I've searched and failed to find sufficient sourcing, I hope I've shown that this presumption should not apply to this particular college.

The article was created three times. The first two iterations were deleted per WP:G11. After the third iteration was created, someone tried to AfD it, but they failed to explain why the school was non-notable. I hope that I have succeeded this time.

It's time to put this article out of its misery before it attracts even more spammy content. Let's delete it for the third time.

Please delete and salt. If the school becomes notable in the future, we can create a new article.

I thank for inspiring me to create this AfD nomination. —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's this Globe and Mail article, this MacLean's article , and it's listed as a private career college at ontario.ca . Clovermoss (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion. Dear @, and dear all: Maclean's and The Globe are both reliable sources, and these sources raise good accusations about the quality of education offered at the school. However, WP:WHYN says: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Do these sources offer enough coverage of Canadian Business College to allow us to write an entire (non-stub) article about the school? I suspect that the answer is No, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts. —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @: My thoughts are if that's all there is that I can find, then I agree with you. I plan to do a bit more digging, but it's possible I won't find anything else. I just thought it was worthwhile to point out independent reliable sources do mention the college. And since it has previously been deleted through G11 twice, I thought it was kind of interesting that the coverage was about formal complaints. I'm thinking that more in-depth coverage might be outside what can typically be found in a Google search. I'm a grade 12 student in Ontario, so there's other resources available to me that might prove more useful. Clovermoss (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @: Okay, so I've done another half hour of research and while I'll do more tomorrow, this is what I have found:
 * This is from the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. It's about key performance indicators, and there's there's dedicated pdfs for a report on each of the three campuses.
 * Another mention from the Globe and Mail, with the former CEO of the college commenting on the Ottawa Business College scandal.
 * Career Colleges Ontario also mentions the CEO, albeit this is also a passing mention.
 * This article from IT World Canada.
 * As I said, I plan to do more research tomorrow. Do you think any of these demonstrate general notability? I'm genuinely interested in your input, as I don't really have much experience with AfD.
 * &mdash;Clovermoss (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear The KPI data at  might be useful data for anyone considering going to the school. It might be too difficult to weave the data into the article, but we could link to it in a "Further reading" section. Newer KPI data is available in HTML format at . Your links [8&#93; and [9&#93; are passing mentions, definitely not useful for proving notability. Your IT World Canada link [10&#93; might be mildly useful because it hints at just how tiny the school is; for comparison, George Brown College has about 30,000 full-time students. Note that IT World Canada is a trade publication, and I suspect that coverage may not be useful for proving notability.
 * In general, if Canadian Business College has any notability, I think it might be borderline at best. It may be true that, in general, the coverage in independent reliable sources fails to discuss the college in sufficient detail. Feel free to spend as many hours as you like searching for more sources. But, if I may offer a suggestion: As User:Hemanshu once wrote, "Every hour you spend at Wikipedia is an hour from your life. Do you have something more important to do? Consider doing it first." And, even if you choose to spend that time on Wikipedia, I might suggest that you might like to spend some of that time on some other tasks, such as dealing with some of Wikipedia's numerous task backlogs.
 * Regarding articles (created by professional spammers and/or their throwaway accounts) about private corporations (like this business college) and about living people, I'm a deletionist. Such articles tend to attract spam edits by users with conflicts of interest. There generally aren't enough watchers to catch all of these spam edits. Some of these edits remain live for years. It's easier just to delete the articles, and to salt their titles if necessary. That way, Wikipedians can focus their limited time on more-important things.
 * I still think it'd be best to delete our article, thereby prioritizing the overall quality of Wikipedia over our exact quantity of articles. If anyone ever expands our Proprietary colleges article to be less US-centric, and if they also add a list of the main Canadian private colleges to that article, then we could recreate Canadian Business College as a redirect to Proprietary colleges.
 * Have I yet convinced you to change or retract your original non-vote? :)
 * Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * : Yes. Since deletion on notability is suppossed to discuss whether or not a topic is actually notable and the limited coverage I've found is mostly passing mentions/routine coverage, I do change my mind on the keep, because you're right, this college is not notable. I'm going to have to look up how to strike through my text to change the vote. I appreciate the link to the notvote thing, as this is more of a discussion on my part than a vote anyways. As for the time I spend on Wikipedia - I respectfully disagree that it's a waste of my time to do stuff like this, or else I wouldn't have done it. I don't spend much time at AfD, and I've already taken a look at the backlogs that exist. I have every intention to help there where I can. 21:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear It's good that you were willing to change your mind; good openmindedness! I didn't mean to imply that working on Wikipedia itself was a waste of time. I meant to imply that, after you've spent a reasonable amount of time looking for sources to show that a certain subject is notable, spending more time looking for additional sources might _then_ be a waste of time. :) —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, I'd say. While it's received some press coverage, much of it is related to routine coverage. As well, the other sources are predominantly the subject's website (that is, the college) or reports from regulators. A question: as a matter of practice, do we list all for-profit, privately accredited career colleges? Doug Mehus (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear WP:NSCHOOL seems to imply that, if _any_ school fails both WP:ORG and WP:GNG, it should be deleted, whether it's a for-profit school or a non-profit school. —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Ah, thanks for pointing out the policies to me. So, it's not really the fact that they're a private college. That's actually good to hear. I will leave my Delete vote up then, since it seems to be the only vote in favour besides the proponent.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong Keep The first argument that the nominator makes is that it is "spammy" - but WP:NOTCLEANUP and next the nominator tries to use low page views as a reason for delete. Please see WP:POPULARPAGE for exactly why the nominator's argument is wrong. The third argument the nominator advances is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. the nominator says "...it's hung around as a blight on Wikipedia for years. It's time to put the article to rest." "...It's time to put this article out of its misery before it attracts even more spammy content. Note: The first AfD was nearly a WP:SNOW keep. the college is notable and the article is referenced. The nominator makes all the wrong arguments. Deleting the article does not serve our readers WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE Lightburst (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, passes WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES #2. Most independently accredited degree-awarding[1] institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note2, except it explicitly states at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. - so not a reason to Keep.  HighKing++ 21:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG, non-noteble, spammy written like a promotional brochure with program details. salt it since it is 3rd creation. (Iamchinahand (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC))
 * Note that the first two versions which were speedied in 2008 looked nothing like the current article, they were just pure spam. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally spammy. Arguments such as "the article is referenced" demonstrates some editors haven't a clue how GNG and WP:NCORP work since not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. We're after quality references, not quantity. Die to a lack of quality references (with "Independent Content"), topic totally fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. If we remove WP:PRIMARY sources, there is little to say outside a WP:YELLOWPAGES entry and maybe a short section on scandal. Schools should meet WP:NORG and I think such organizations like this are little better than degree mills, and we should not promote them. Now I have second thoughts on whether I should've withdrawn this nom a week weeks ago: Articles for deletion/Panineeya Institute of Dental Sciences & Research Centre. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable college: article that is much improved as filelakeshoe has stated. Colleges which bestow degrees are notable. Wm335td (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note Nope, Colleges bestowing degrees are not automatically notable. As per this .  HighKing</b>++ 21:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean the RfC that was not in any way about tertiary institutions but only about secondary schools?! However, having said that (and agreeing that degree-awarding institutions are notable), I can't see any evidence that it does bestow degrees. Only diplomas. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing does not seem adequate to meet notability requirements -- seems to be either not independent of the subject, simple listings in databases or registrations, or promotional press release language.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:53, 19 October 2019 (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.