Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College of Technology London


 * 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

College of Technology London

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable private college, article only consists of directory information and dubious claims. Grim23 ★ 23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Typically, articles on dubious colleges are kept and edited to reflect the fact that people shouldn't attend. A user expects Wikipedia to tell them if something is legit. Does this college fail WP:V? Abductive  (reasoning) 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if it is an associated with University of Wales it is genuine and notable enough. I removed the spam and clarified the relationship somewhat at sourced it to the U. Wales. -- some further checking is needed to establish just which of its degrees are in partnership with them, and to add some basic information about enrollment, and faculty, and the like.     We absolutely do not deal with articles on  "dubious colleges" so they "are kept and edited to reflect the fact that people shouldn't attend." It should not be the case that    "a user expects Wikipedia to tell them if something is legit." We present the factual sourced information, and the readers are responsible for drawing the conclusions. There's a key difference between those two approaches.  Certainly we write accurately about the nature of the accreditation,  and I hope we get it right--but Wikipedia can not be considered as an actually reliable source for that or anything else.    DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll bet you cash money that people use Wikipedia all the time to figure out if a college is legit and if they should attend. I think you misunderstood what I was saying, which is that we don't delete colleges even if they are diploma mills or unaccredited. In fact, we rarely delete colleges even if they aren't notable, due to an established (partly by you) consensus that users expect that Wikipedia will cover even the most obscure college. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure many people use it wrong, in many ways, though they ought to realize that most of our college articles are written in large part by enthusiastic students and alumni. In any case, this one seems to be genuine--though I admit to a little puzzlement about the role of  U. Wales.    DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - per DGG. I note that at this time the article seems free of any dubious claims or unwanted directory content. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Strange college, why the partnership with Wales? My Keep goes with what Abductive was saying.  Article definitely could do with expanding though if there are some good sources DRosin (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2009 (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.