Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Mountain 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Diamond Mountain University

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unaccredited "university" with little third party media coverage. Non-notable. Johnfos (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There are two mentions in the New York Timess: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/garden/15buddhists.html?pagewanted=all and

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/world/americas/15iht-15buddhists.12909622.html Due to the First Admendment, many states have liberal laws that make it easy for religiouns organizations to establish unaccrediated colleges and universities which can legally grant religious degrees. Most such degress have little value outside the religious organization that granted them. The internet presence of most such educational establishments consists of their own websites and self-published books. however, Diamond Mountain University is mentioned on a large number of independant websites, blogs. directories, & buddhist websites. If Buddhism is considered a fringe religous group by Wikipedia, then it is a well knwon fringe group. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - All high schools should be in and all colleges should be in. Some colleges are better than others, some are reputable and some are not, some have specific religious missions and others are open to all comers. As long as the article exhibits veracity, verifiability, and is written in a neutral tone, it's not really Wikipedia's place to allow some and toss others, as though we are picking schools we would personally attend or to which we would send our children. The mere fact of providing a truthful, verifiable, neutral description aids the public good. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - educates to tertiary level; such pages should be sourced and expanded not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be specific. Exactly which sources should be included to establish notability? Johnfos (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 15:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The above-mentioned NYT articles are actually the same article and this is not so much about this university than rather about Michael Roach and Christie McNally. Therefore, the notability is not established. If one could address this issue, the article should be improved. Otherwise, delete. Beagel (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The analogy to high school notability, mentioned above, is that DEGREE GRANTING colleges and universities are assumed to be notable. But this does not appear to be a degree-granting institution. It is simply a retreat venue that offers some classes. The word "university" in the title does not seem to be accurate. In that case, the notability of the retreat venue is subject to the usual requirement, namely, significant coverage by independent reliable sources - which this venue does not appear to meet. --MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, per MelanieN. Not a degree granting institution, plus too little specific coverage. Fails both WP:N and WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename & keep to Diamond Mountain Center - the place doesn't even call  itself 'university' on  its website.--Kudpung (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What good would renaming it do? It would still be non-notable. The article has not a single outside reference, and the NYT article cited above is about two people and barely mentions Diamond Mountain. Prsaucer1958 argues that the retreat is "mentioned" by "independant websites, blogs. directories, & buddhist websites", none of which are reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, and none of which provide significant coverage as defined by Wikipedia. Prsaucer also tries to imply that if we don't keep this obscure American retreat we are somehow disrespecting Buddhism; sorry, doesn't follow. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: When searching for "Diamond Mountain" and "bowie" or "arizona" you can find more references, which I have added to the article, all of which include more coverage than the 2008 NYT piece on the founders, though I added that also.  The coverage seems to be enough to keep this 5 year old article.  Am OK with changing name to remove "university" though its status as an unaccredited school should be noted.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice try and I really appreciate your efforts. But two of the references, the Idaho Mountain Express and the Arizona Range News, are from tiny non-notable papers, and the reference from the Arizona Daily Star (like the NYT reference) appears to be about the founder and his spiritual partner, rather than about the facility. I'm sticking with "delete", or alternatively, "merge" to the founder Michael Roach, since he at least has some reliable sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Melanie on this one: still non-notable. Maybe we could have a paragraph on Diamond Mountain in the Michael Roach article. Johnfos (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2010 (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.