Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canterbury University of the Seychelles


 * 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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn per rewrite.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Canterbury University of the Seychelles

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

[Nomination revised below.] Reads a bit spammy. Is it notable? -- RHaworth 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete . Reads as an advert and is very possibly phrased so as to mislead. See, for instance,, which lists Canterbury University under "list of unaccredited degree suppliers is maintained by ODA for the protection of the citizens of Oregon and their post-secondary schools by identifying those degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)." See also Diploma mill. Finally note which lists other occurances of CUotS and which may be similar attempts to persuade readers that the mill is legit. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Delete per concerns raised by User:Tagishsimon. Seems like a diploma mill's trying to make itself seem more notable than it really is. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per rewrite. Article is still a stub, but at least by now, notability is asserted by means of reliable sources. Kudos to User:Tagishsimon for improving the article. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 *  Strong/Speedy Delete  This is a fraud-university add, see this guardian article. There is no real university (only a learning institution), it is not accredited, it is in Cheshire, England (while the city of Canterbury is in Kent and has no university of that name), the Seychelles part seems to be for legal reasons at best. There are no references, no links, no google hits for this institution besides WP-articles and I couldn't find it at the Seychelles department of education website. It only exists to screw foreign students. Thanks to the nom for reporting that s@#t! Malc82 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I have rewritten the article, it is now properly referenced and, I think, balanced. I think it is probably notable enough to stay; and by doing so it might achieve a useful purpose. It is, needless to say, on my watch-list. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Comment With the complete rewrite to a "diploma mill"-article, my former comments are of course obsolete. I will also include it to my watchlist. Malc82 01:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in its rewritten form (see comment above). Malc82 01:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wow.  This is one of the worst spamming backfires I've seen here yet.  I endorse keeping the article in its present form, but it will have to be watched carefully for evidence of respamification.  Also, someone should stare at the present version for a while and figure out how to say, "Major educational watchdogs seem to think they're crooks," in an NPOV-sounding way.  Do it for Jimbo.   --Dynaflow   babble  02:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I stared at it for a few minutes and then NPOV'ed it as well as possible, given the subject matter.  The article should now satisfy WP:NPOV, WP:NOTE, and WP:V easily.   --Dynaflow   babble  03:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (revised view of nominator). Certainly this revised state is totally acceptable. My only reservation is that we should deny recognition altogether - is it notorious enough to qualify? -- RHaworth 11:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I share your concern about notability. But I have decided to be an inclusionist on this one, not least since I do not think there is any real competition for the Canterbury University of the Seychelles namespace, because the original author claimed that 10k poor souls were currently in process of procuring worthless paper degrees, and as a public service, because our CUotS article rates so highly in Google. It is also an object lesson for spammers. On the other hand many of my arguments have little to do with objective notability, and I suspect we've just created a troll magnet. -Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Comment It shouldn't be that hard to keep this article clean if only all contributors of this AfD-project keep it on their watchlist. If there are thousands of screwed "students" and several newspaper articles, I think it meets notability guidelines. Malc82 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Spammers aren't out for recognition; they're here to make their companies look good.  This spammer has fallen down rather badly, and I don't think WP:DENY will hold true here.  If anything, it trumpets that "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is not as safe a place for spam as one would think.   --Dynaflow   babble  15:28, 24 May 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.