Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Graduate School (3rd 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 no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

European Graduate School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Private educational organization. As the article history shows, there seems to be a longtime problem with promotionalism and COI editing (see also AN/I thread). This should lead us to reexamine the organization's notability, as the previous AfD is very old and seems to have had canvassing and socking issues too. To be sure, this apparently isn't a diploma mill but a real school with real faculty, and it is recognized by the Canton of Valais as a "private school of tertiary level". But the many cited sources are mostly dead links, and what can be accessed seem to be mostly passing mentions (such as interviews with teachers in which it is mentioned that they are faculty there), or regurgitated press releases. If there is a reliable independent source that covers this school in sufficient detail (which may well exist), then we should keep the article, but as it is the sources appear rather thin.  Sandstein  21:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: dead links should be fixed whenever possible (and it's often possible) and anyway their being dead isn't really a reason to consider the article less notable than it would otherwise be. Similarly, COI editing and promotionalism may put in some doubt the genuineness of previous "keep" stances, but since it's WP:NOTVOTE, they would have been judged by their merits, not their count, by the discussion closer, and as such I wouldn't say they somehow influence the article's notability and right to exist. LjL (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think there are reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, here are two: .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The first source looks acceptable, but the other is just a reproduced press release - we'd need another.  Sandstein   09:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. In the 10 years since the last AfD (and the fact that this is the third go-round is telling), there should be more sources than the two cited by Vanjagenije that the school is trying to get accredited in Malta. Sources in the article are passing mentions or directory listings.  Mini  apolis  23:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Often, and logically, the fact that an article repeatedly passes AfDs as "keep" is only "telling" of the fact that the article has multiple confirmations that it should be kept. LjL (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * We accept public and private high schools even without much verification., why wouldn't we here? As long as the thing can be proven to exist, it can easily be argued that this is inherently notable. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a guideline stipulating inherent notability for schools. In any case, such guidelines only offer a presumption of notability, which must still be tested through reliable sources if challenged.  Sandstein   09:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily in favor of deletion of this article (I lean towards keeping), but I find your argument strange: generally speaking, notability isn't the same as existence for Wikipedia's purposes, and I'm not sure why this would be different for schools, even if other schools exist. LjL (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't think that the problems with the SPA and COI editing of the article indicates that it should be deleted, but that it should be semi-protected on a long-term basis. BMK (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - _ A balanced article about an educational institute that clearly exists and falls within our generally accepted practice for schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)keep
 * Keep reluctantly. COI & SPA are not reasons to delete an article. And should be kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, more toruble than it's worth. This is a school of no objectively provable merit and its SEO team are determined that we musthave a hagiography, making the beusiness of maintaning NPOV very tiresome. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Trouble vs worth is not a criterion for deletion; notability and verifiability are. Can we concentrate on those? A simple test: would we keep the article if it weren't for "the school's SEO team"? If yes, then is this a revenge? LjL (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:LjL. We have deleted several articles where there was marginal notability at best and there was heavy promotional pressure, and the consensus was that the article was not worth keeping due to the volunteer effort it was taking to maintain the neutrality of the article.  I am not saying that is the case here; it is just an increasingly common factor in deletions discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I consider it a spurious one and not in the spirit of what guidelines about deletion recommend. Deletion is a very extreme measure since it's one of the few things that removes material from most editors' accessibility (since it cannot be retrieved from the history), and taking this route for petty reasons of revenge against disruptive editors or unwillingness to keep an article tidy is dangerous. I'm sure it has been done before, but I'm sure other silly stuff has been done before. LjL (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can consider that as you may; it puts you outside the consensus that is developing. Do not mischaracterize it as "petty revenge"; it is a question of wise use of community resources in presenting the public with articles that provide summaries of accepted knowledge and keeping out abuse of Wikipedia for promotion -- all of that is in NOT; the policy and pillar.  There is nothing petty or vengeful in it.  Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If articles are being deleted not on grounds of lack of notability of verifiability but due to the fact they're being disrupted, that is a self-evidently inappropriate use of the deletion process by my understanding of everything about Wikipedia, so that's how I am characterizing it. There is a discussion about actual notability being started below: that seems a much more worthwhile deletion debate than one based on fixing disruption by more disruption (which deletion of otherwise appropriate articles is). LjL (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:LjL again you are not responding to what I am actually saying. What I said was where there was marginal notability at best.  If an article is a slamdunk "keep" based on NOTABILITY this argument has not been at play in the past.  It has only been used if an article is borderline.  If you are at all experienced in Wikipedia, you know that there are quite a few marginal articles. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note - I went through the history of the article last night and listed all the SPA and conflicted editors who had multiple edits in a connected contributors template - there were many IP addresses with one or two edits that were clearly promoting EGS/removing criticisms that I didn't list. But there are about 40 there. See Talk:European_Graduate_School. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can anyone show that this meets WP:N? We've got COI editors causing problems and trying to make the place look good. And _that_ has caused our article to turn nearly into a platform for attacking it instead (the accreditation section at the moment has had it's actually verified accreditation removed and nothing but largely irrelevant negative stuff in its place--all done/maintained by admins under full protection).  Frankly it's an embarrassment and if this doesn't meet our notability requirements we'd be best off deleting it. I'm leaning toward  delete  based on WP:N, though if sources show up that count toward WP:N then I'd have to move away from that point.  Also, we are almost to the point WP:CSD applies.  Hobit (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep based on sources found by Cunard. Still have concerns about the accreditation section. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * if sources show up that count toward WP:N then I'd have to move away from that point [of leaning toward deletion] –, I've listed several sources below that provide significant coverage about the subject. I agree that the "Accreditation" section is problematic because it contains irrelevant negative material sourced only to primary sources (the accreditation agencies). I'd recommend removing that material if it cannot be sourced to third-party reliable sources. The "Accreditation" section should include information from this 19 January 2016 article from the Times of Malta, which says, "The EGS was accredited and licensed in Malta as a higher education institution last year, and is also fully accredited under the European Bologna process."  It also does not include information like this 22 June 2015 article from Malta Today, which says, "Already accredited as a university by Switzerland, EGS is now looking to be accredited as a university by Malta, having already received accreditation by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) as a higher education institution in Malta."  I'd like to add this information to the article to make the "Accreditation" section so the article will comply with Neutral point of view, but I cannot do so because an admin has fully protected the article.  And based on the article's history, an admin removed accreditation information sourced to third-party reliable sources added by another admin but has kept in accreditation information sourced to primary sources.  Cunard (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for evaluating the sources, ! Cunard (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - school seems unaccredited as well. SQL Query me!  10:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is accredited. That it appears not to be is part of the problem with our article. Hobit (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any way to ever trust the NPOV of this article unless the "SEO team" leaves it alone, which won't happen. Since WP:NPOV takes precedence over WP:Notability and since the topic is barely notable at best, and we don't seem to have any way to noindex it, toss it.  173.228.123.101 (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What you say is completely and dangerously wrong: NPOV does not take precedence over notability in a deletion discussion. Saying that an article's topic is notable yet the article itself is currently WP:RUBBISH is specifically an argument that needs to be avoided in deletion discussions. The article is non-neutral? So fix it, don't cut off pieces of an encyclopedia. WP:AFD itself mentions The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either, and surely, an article about a school is not intrinsically POV and can be salvaged. Really, I am starting to be appalled at how many of the deletion arguments here are based on WP:IAR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than grounded in policy. LjL (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually NPOV beats notability everywhere on Wikipedia because it is one of the five pillars. Inability to cover a subject neutrally is why lack of sources (i.e. failing GNG) is a reason to delete, for example. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi LjL, I agree that if an article has fixable NPOV problems, it's usually better to fix the problems than delete the article. For this article, I gave my reasons for believing the NPOV problems are not fixable in practice (I'm not interested in abstract theoretical possibilities).  Since I don't think we should be willing to keep such an article permanently, that leaves deletion.  Deletion is not irreversible: if someone later manages to write a version that meets our standard of neutrality, there's a few different ways to undo the deletion.  This happens sometimes, usually because new sources became available after the deletion that are good enough to support a neutral article. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, and struck my previous vote. This version is never going to be neutral and spam-free, and WP:NPOV trumps WP:GNG. Therefore, I believe we should delete, with no prejudice to a non-conflicted editor writing a neutral tone article in the future. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as currently lacking sources showing the topic satisfies WP:GNG. The many links are, as described above, dubious mentions. The current fuss about what accreditation in Malta involves shows the ephemeral nature of the school—if a reliable source had even a brief outline of the organization as an educational institution there would be no need to argue over such matters. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment only for now as I'm uncertain how to comment thus I'm asking for analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow European Graduate School to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 


 * Comment on 'LA Times' source above, this source opens the EGS 'describes itself in expansive terms … … its literature says' The main body is then, in its entirety, explicitly quoting the website. That source proves nothing except that EGS has a website. Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * would you consider adding these sources to the article itself, if not already present, and/or elaborating on them on the talk page for this page, instead of keeping this wall of text with full citations here? It is always my opinion that AfD pages should be dedicated to relatively brief opinion statements and debate if necessary, not extensive evidence of the article's notability: that belongs in the article itself, as it should speak for itself. LjL (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a reply to this comment. My reply was deleted by Vanjagenije (who failed to restore my comments when restoring a "delete" vote he also removed) who insists on collapsing the quotes here. Talk page guidelines says: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Vanjagenije failed to get my permission to edit or delete my comments. The guideline further states: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as '[possible libel removed by ~]'." That Vanjagenije insists on refactoring my comments against my objections and removing my comments that oppose his actions is poor behavior by an admin. Cunard (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG, appears not to be an accredited institution, so it wouldn't even meet the much lower standards at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.  Onel 5969  TT me</i> 3:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)
 * Sources are above which seem to be well over the bar of the GNG. Also, it _is_ accredited.  It's just our article that indicates it's not.  That's untrue, but we've got admins using protection to keep any reference to its accreditation out of the article... Hobit (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well: WP:TNV. And not accusing editors of cover-ups would be a bonus. Cheers, <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  21:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TNV says Wikipedia is about what reliable sources says, but Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for itself. If other sources state that this school is accredited and it's true that somehow that information is being kept out of the article, then WP:TNV definitely doesn't apply. I don't know if this is the case, but claims that it's "just our article" (and not reliable sources) indicating it's not accredited, and that there exist "references to its accreditation". If these references exist, they need to be added to the article and accounted for in WP:N assessment. LjL (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Diff where accreditation information was removed while the article was under protection: . Talk page has the details of attempts to get the undisputed accreditation back in. I think my characterization of the situation is accurate. Do you disagree?  Hobit (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that diff: which highlights the institution's lack of accreditation. Cheers, <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  10:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The diff just shows someone removing the accreditation information. I assume you are aware that removing that information from Wikipedia doesn't suddenly make it not true.   shows the accreditation. Hobit (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: The School is accredited in Malta. Accreditation was granted by National Commission for Further and Higher Education, aMaltese Institution legitimate to confer accreditation according to the 2012 revised Education Act . I do not understand why other users still say that this school is not accredited. If the article does not reflect the current EGS accreditation is because the administrator who have looked over the article so far refused to edit it and when a different administrator tried to add the Malta accreditation info he promptly reverted it. The issue is also raised in the EGS talk page. Thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC) — Claudioalv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * delete most of the sources brought by Cunard are classic "passing mentions" which do nothing to help a discussion of NOTABILITY - we need sources with substantial discussion of the subject of the article.   The issue that has roiled this article for some time now - its accreditation  - is a great example of this.  I spent a lot of time looking for secondary sources discussing this issue, and all we have are the two pieces from the press in Malta which are really not independent of the question since the accreditation is in Malta. And even those sources don't discuss EGS' moves in Malta in light of recent controversy within Malta about recently lowering their standards for academic institutions (see here); I have no idea how those issues fit (or don't fit) with EGS' presence in Malta.  Overall, this is a case where we have an article on a marginally notable subject, that is under a great deal of promotional pressure from the subject of the article; we can't resolve that pressure definitively due to lack of high quality sources and so the disputes are endless time-sucks, so we should just delete this so the editing community can spend its time more productively.  Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog. I do disagree with you because Malta is a democratic and sovereign country. Your comment implies that degrees conferred in malta are lower standard so each Maltese School should not be recognized. In the same list there is also University of Malta and I think that it is not correct to state that University of Malta is a University and European Graduate School is not. Both are recognized by the same Institution (NCFHE) Claudioalv (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Claudioalv I specifically disclaimed the meaning you say I am inferring. I wrote: "I  have no idea how those issues fit (or don't fit)".   Stop mischaracterizing other people.  Your arguments also have nothing to do with the criteria of the deletion discussion.  I am only replying to you because you are an attorney and have made legal threats against other editors here and I am not putting myself at the same risk.  Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not understand when you say I am not putting myself at the same risk. I am spending my free time writing here as I stated in my talk page. My purpose is to raise an argument and not make legal threats. If I did it in the past I apologize and was not my purpose. I just said that your argument was contradictory because there are other University in Malta and Wiki defines them as University. And probably was the same source which say EGS is accredited. That's it. Claudioalv (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My argument has no contradiction in it and you still don't seem to understand what i actually wrote. And please sign your posts, claudio. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This page is about the deletion of EGS article because of lack of notability, according to you there is no substantial discussion in the Maltese sources and you wrote as an example the accreditation issue. I think that if there is "an accreditation issue" is because the administrators who have looked over the article so far do not agree that Maltese Accreditation Institute is a reliable source until a secondary source (an independent publication) says something about the accreditation. It is like if a new accredited school has to find an independent journal to confirm its accreditation, if not Wiki does not recognize it. I do not understand this policy and this is the reason why I replied to you. In fact, as an example, the Maltese Accreditation Institute does recognize University of Malta as a University, but University of Malta Wiki article does not have the same "accreditation issue". Probably (I am just speculating) because the administrators who looked over that article does think the Maltese Accreditation Institute source is a reliable source. Claudioalv (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You still are not talking about anything I wrote (I said nothing about "there is no substantial discussion in the Maltese sources") yet you indented your reply as though you were actually talking with me.....If you want to respond to anything that I actually wrote, I would be happy to hear. If you just want to keep making your own arguments, please don't format them as though you are responding to me.
 * Let me just repeat what I said yet more clearly. This article should be deleted because 1) there are insufficient high quality independent secondary sources with substantial discussion of EGS (it is marginally notable, in our technical language);  2)  the article is under substantial pressure from advocates; 3) this creates endless arguments in which the advocates in #2 just repeat their arguments based on weak sources endlessly and we don't have high quality sources (per #1) to resolve these arguments definitively;  4) these endless arguments are a big drain on the precious, limited resource of volunteer time  -- time that the volunteer community could otherwise be giving to strongly NOTABLE topics that really need volunteer time.   That is what I am saying.  Nothing you have written responds to any part of that.  Not any part of it.  Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You wrote that "The issue that has roiled this article for some time now - its accreditation - is a great example of this" (i.e. Community needs sources with substantial discussion of the subject of the article). I do disagree with you because the issue of its accreditation (or license) is not a real issue. That's it. If there was an issue was not because of me or because of SPA, but because an ad refused to address it so far. If someone would have addressed two months ago, my time and the Community time would have not been wasted. But this is an old history. I can see that you have well addressed it in the talk page and I totally agree with your post there. thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The accreditation issue is a great example of that. 'there are no high quality secondary sources that discuss this. I am not replying to you further; you are not listening to me and are not trying to listen to me. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per cogent analysis by, above. Sandstein, was there ever an WP:SPI investigation filed about this issue? I see the one WP:SPA account at -- are there any other related accounts you are aware of ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can answer to you by saying that I do not know any related accounts. As I said in my talk page I am individual who decided to join Wiki community because I found some info not correct. My purpose was not to promote this school, but only to raise the argument that it is accredited in Malta and that two US sources are outdated (Maine and Michigan). Claudioalv (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked for prior investigations or socks and so can't tell you if there were or are any.  Sandstein   06:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Comment: Note that I closed the discussion as no consensus but then was asked to reopen it. Unlike many complaints about my AfD closes, I find this request reasonable and justified, and I reopen the discussion. Obviuosly I will not be the one closing it again.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling with why there is an issue here. We have sources.  The first 2 listed above are solely on this topic.  The 3rd has two paragraphs.  The rest have more than a passing mention (though the LA one is really weird).  Accreditation isn't an inclusion issue as far as I know.  But if it _is_ for some strange reason, we have the accreditor saying it's accredited.  We don't need a secondary source for that.  I'm not at all fond of the way this article has been handled (and I'll continue to claim our admins are nearly as much of a problem as those engaged in puffery).  But puffery can be dealt with via protection (ideally semi protection IMO, but...) and isn't actually an issue with the article as it exists (in fact the opposite it the problem now IMO). Hobit (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening that, Hobit. I and others don't agree with your analysis of the sources.  There is only really one independent source with substantial discussion and that is The Phoenix which is an alternative weekly newspaper; pretty low quality.   There is a bit more discussion in the sources from Malta but one of those is a thinly recycled press release and they are really local papers covering local news.   The LA Times is a passing mention.  If EGS were really notable we would have many more independent secondary sources giving substantial discussion to it.  (I have spent several hours looking.  Maybe I missed stuff  but I don't think so.  I would be happy if there were one really high quality, independent secondary source with substantial discussion - just one from something like The Chronicle of Higher Education, the NYT, the Times of London. the Telegraph, the Guardian... heck if there were something in a high quality source German or French or Italian I would be open to that.  (why is there nothing from a Swiss source, since they have been there much longer?)  There is nothing like that at hand.  This is very far from slam-dunk notable subject.  It is marginally notable at best. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that local sources aren't an issue with respect to WP:N. Your point about press releases I get, but I do disagree.  I think it's pretty far over the bar, but as you say, it's obvious others disagree. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. With DGG's hefty (in more ways than one) !vote below I think there is no way this article will be deleted (it will either be as originally closed, or even as keep), but i still don't agree. :)  On the local thing, it is my understanding that there have been deletions where N was based mostly on local sources... but I am not going to beat this dead horse anymore and have already started working on improving the article. I was waiting to do much there until it was more clear if the article would be kept or not.  Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough sources to establish notability for an educational organisation. Problematic editing behaviour is not dealt with by an AFD. AusLondonder (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Accreditation is not necessary for a college to be notable. Just as WP contains articles on various irresponsible methods os pseudo-medicine, the same applies in education. Frankly, I have no real idea about the nature of the EGS accreditation. Determining this from available sources requires the interpretation of ambiguous primary documents. It is entirely unclear whether the Malta accreditation is for the school, or for a course--the various documentation available there is not consistent. Nor can we tell whether the EU really does recognize some or all of its courses --my guess is that it might recognize one or two but not all of them. I do know that I as an educator would be extremely skeptical about the status of its accreditation. But that's not the point. We do not in practice follow the GNG in schools, by long outstanding practice. In order to avoid debates just like this one about the precise nature of schools, and the exact details and degree of reliability of the sources; it's simpler to just include them above a certain educational level., and not otherwise. The GNG is a guideline, and a guideline is something we usually follow; this very statement implies it is not something that we always follow--that not only can we in principle make exceptions, that we do.  The evidence that we do is the 60 or so AfD discussion a day right here, most of which are devoted to figuring out exactly the boundary. After 10 years & 100,000 instances here, we still are arguing each individual case.
 * I notice with considerable dismay that some of those arguing for delete here also often argue for deletion of articles on non-conventional medicine, on the same grounds that the sources are unreliable or unsubstantial . The easiest way to keep out something one doesn't like, is to say this, since there is not clear boundary for the meaning of either of those terms., For any article where I have argued for keep on the basis of interpreting these terms, I could perfectly well have said just the opposite, and v-v for the ones where I've argued for delete. Perhaps I can best clarify it by doing just that; by giving just such arguments, and saying pick one, according to whether or not you think in belongs in an encyclopedia.
 * The true purpose of the notability guideline is to enforce the principles of NOT DIRECTORY and NOT PROMOTION. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage, as does accepting articles about things that nobody but the proprietor is interested in.  Once we become a directory or vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. The usefulness of the GNG is to make sure that things covered here have been discussed sufficiently in the outside world, that people might rationally come here to look for information on them. Reliable in the relevant sense does not been "high quality"--it does not mean the type of source necessary to justify a statement of disputed fact in an article.  Given the nature of this particular encyclopedia, it is reasonable that people will come here looking for information about any higher educational institution, and therefore outr coverage can be justifiable more inclusive than usual.   We are writing an encyclopedia for practical use, not a purely abstract exercise.  DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - with people like Jacques Rancière and Slavoj Žižek on its books (as mentioned in reliable sources), people are likely to search for information on the EGS, and we have coverage in reliable sources such as this, on which to base an article. We should therefore have an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to pass notability requirements. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You will have to expand on that. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  10:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH:, , , . North America1000 00:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Is no one troubled that the 'RS' (Times of Malta) that is being relied on for accreditation (Malta confirms accreditation in Switz.?), also says 'The Occupy Wall Street protests and Spanish political party Podemos … … both started their life as projects created by students during the course of their studies'? This a post-graduate-degree-awarding institution that despite 21 years of existence, doesn't get any significant coverage in its base country and is reliant on brief features in a place where it offers 3-week summer courses to validate its existence/notability/accreditation? EGS is proud to announce its new residency program in Valletta, Malta, beginning spring 2016 (21 March–13 April 2016). Regarding the 'people on its books', notability is not inherited and doesn't an uncited claim that 'Derrida' was a founder, cause anyone to be even a tad sceptical about the weakness of these sources? I don't know the laws of Malta, but can tell everyone that I have accreditation to organise summer courses on a Med. island, the process was bureaucratic, involved health checks, building inspections etc., but ZERO academic or 'non-safety' investigation. Why should it? The island is simply giving me permission to bring students there, not validating anything. I agree with others that NPOV and non-promotion should take precedence over other considerations inc. 'long-standing practice'. Pincrete (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , my comment about the people who are on the EGS's books wasn't supposed to imply that notability is inherited from them. It was rather a poorly expressed argument about one possible value in having the article. The EGS affiliations of these well-known scholars are often mentioned in mainstream media, so my thinking was along the same lines as 's comment that "people might rationally come here to look for information". What bothers me is the lack of available sources. There are some, but why doesn't an institution with such high-profile scholars affiliated to it get much more coverage? I've spent quite a long time searching, and the more I do so, the less sure I become (even about what the institution actually offers - e.g. is it really just a summer school?). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we all understand the   ambiguous nature of the accreditation, but that is part of the reason for having the article. It can be difficult to make this clear in the article, but it can be done. NPOV indicates what should be said, not whether we should have the article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)   DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * DGG, actually quite a few people here seem to be taking 'accreditation' at face value. When sources are very thin, as I believe is the case here, it can be very difficult indeed to create a neutral account without engaging in OR (such as what 'accreditation' actually means).Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , my remarks were not specifically addressed at you, I was mainly cautioning against an 'if these names are connected (Derrida? in the Sw village article), it must be notable', when the extent of involvement may be very marginal at best. The Malta connection is certainly a short residency (3.5 weeks) according to the Malta source and EGS's own website. There is a US source that describes 'internet + residencies in Sw'. If mainstream RS give more than passing mention (having given a single talk at some time?) to these 'notables', then a valid connection is established, otherwise I fear we are reliant on publicity blurb traceable to the institution itself, which does not appear to be modest about its claims.


 * Not knowing what EGS is and who has 'accredited' it, and in what sense is also an issue. In the UK accreditation implies validation of academic standards, in some jurisdictions, a 'licence' is obtainable which validates nothing more than building safety standards etc. (I have such a licence). I know nothing about accreditation in Sw or Malta, but would caution against accepting EGS's claim at face value, even its own website says it is accredited by its canton. What does that actually mean? … … addendum My suspicions as to whether Malta EGS is 'accredited' or simply 'licensed' appear to be well-founded. Malta law allows self-accreditation, if Jytdog is correct here. Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit puzzled why there's so much discussion about accreditation here. There is no doubt to me that it's a government-accredited private university in Switzerland, per the link given in the nomination, whatever its status in Malta may be. But that's quite immaterial to notability, which is about coverage in reliable sources.  Sandstein   15:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete . There is a mass of commentary about the questionable content of the school's courses, none of which appears in reliable sources. A big chunk of the content is sourceable only from directories, and literally the only people who give a monkeys about the article are the school's SEO team and the poor buggers who have to keep defending the article form them. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * there are sufficient poor buggers  quite prepared to defend this and any other article from SEOs. If we removed from WP every article  being used by SEOs we'd be an encyclopedia without coverage of current politics,sports, business, and entertainment. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't !vote twice.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad. Lost count of the dramas. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

[@Daniel Kenneth] I have attended this school and I am a graduate from it. I find your comment here very unfair. Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The school is a fraud and this school is not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Murtagh1585 we have a policy about legal threats and you should delete that comment, or you at risk of an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. Your call of course.Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)I have amended my comment. Can you give me advice about what to do so. Daniel Kenneth has made a public comment about the school I graduated from saying that it is a fraud (and by extension, I have been party to a fraud). What exactly am I meant to do in this situation? Can anyone really say whatever they like on Wikipedia provided they have seniority?113.40.156.146 (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (User talk:Jytdog) Is it correct to post that this school is "a fraud" without posting any source? I do find many sources which say is not (even if they are primary) and I do not find any single source which relate this school to the word "fraud". At least should be fair to cite one source but did not cite any. Claudioalv (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So Daniel Kenneth is allowed to keep his comment that EGS is a fraud without any compulsion on him to amend it. Shameful!Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Where can I officially complain about Daniel Kenneth's comment? Is there an email address at Wikipedia for such complaints. Can anyone please help me. Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to those of you voting "keep" and ignoring what we are saying about promotional pressure. We have had two people show up just today, pushing EGS's line on this accreditation issue almost verbatim from their website.  it is really absurd.  If you are going to vote !keep then please put your time where your vote is and talk back to these people who want to WP:OWN the article on behalf of EGS.  Academic institutions are among the most flagrant, unrelenting, and pushy violators of PROMO that I encounter in WP and I deal with a lot of conflicted editors.  The meatpuppetry on this article is among the worst I have seen. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep AFD Is not Cleanup and the fact that there are problematic editors should be dealt with through blocks or bans on those users, not by deleting the article. Problematic editing and vandalism have nothing to do with notability. Just block the editors involved, block IP ranges if necessary, semi-protect the page, and fix the article since they're now prevented from messing it up. Also, if the school is indeed a fraud, that's still not a reason for deletion, it's just a reason to mention that in the article. Smartyllama (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I am one of those problematic editor. I just attempted to raise some arguments which Jztdog well synthesize in the talk page. The only source which has negative content is Texas, but according to other editors I disagree with it is sufficient to build a such article. Of course there are many sources about the accreditation and people who teach at the school which positive content, but or because are primary or because someone related with EGS, or because of the history of the article, or because full protection is not possible to cite in the article. I still do not understand this WP policy even if Jztdog explain me it takes time to develop consensus (I raised these issues 2 months ago). I still have to learn more about Wiki, it should be some effective way to have an article which reflect what the sources say.Claudioalv (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames   let's talk about it  02:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Claudioalv, nobody cares about whether all the sources are positive or negative. Nobody here cares either whether the teachers are famous or completely unknown. The only thing we care about is whether there are sufficient independent sources covering the subject in sufficient detail/depth to write an article about it which is independent of both EGS and those connected to it. I take the view that sources currently offered are insufficient, as is depth. Has no one really written anything about it in its 21 years in Switzerland? That would be much more effective than individual 'students' coming here (as above) and telling us how wonderful it is. Pincrete (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. yes. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pincrete] I do understand that for you and Jytdog the problem is the lack of sufficient independent sources. However, it is clear that the article does weight too much the Texas source and it still does host two outdated sources (Maine and Michigan). Jytdog wrote in the EGS talk page about that. My question is: why wikipedia administrators are not able to take off the two sources which are no longer true? This is not reasonable? Instead we are waiting for consensus which will never be reached because the community does not care about the article. Saying that is not accredited in Texas is fine, but who cares about texas? But saying that in the U.S. is not accredited because Texas is totally unfair. This is my opinion and I am aware that Wiki community does not care too much. Moreover, I do not find any independent American press saying that the school is not accredited or licenced, so  to use your words there are no sufficient detail/depth/secondaty sources to write the school is not accredited in the U.S. Lastly I am trying to discuss about the accreditation/license and not if it wonderful or not based on the sources I cited. [[User:Claudioalv|Claudioalv (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

[@Pincrete and Jytdog] An article about EGS? Are you just inventing this criteria out of your head? There are articles in the Maltese newspapers, there are articles in film and philosophy reviews, there are mentions of EGS in books by Judith Butler, among others. In other words any evidence that is produced that is in anyway positive or independent will be deemed "promotional" by you. This is crazy. (And please don't threaten me for saying all this.)Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * <REDACT PER REVERTBAN>
 * Every language Wikipedia is run differently and so the actions of one language Wikipedia do not affect any other language Wikipedias- arguing it does falls under other stuff exists. In my experience, English Wikipedia tends to have the tightest standards for notability, which is why English Wikipedia doubts whether it's notable, when other languages with lower requirements don't.
 * Also, calling it an "assault" is not assuming good faith. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is yet another independent article featuring EGS from the newspaper Malta Today demonstrating that the school exists and is recognized. (If you do not know who Judith Butler is please ask someone studying philosophy or any humanities subject) Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Here: Here is yet another independent article featuring EGS from the newspaper Malta Today. Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

— Murtagh1585 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Murtagh1585, the 'Malta Today' ref is what we would call a 'mention', it could be used to confirm that EGS organised a lecture at which Judith Butler spoke, nothing more. BTW, you don't need to get too upset about the 'fraud' remark above, it will be ignored by whoever closes this. Among the many things we don't care about here, is whether EGS is/is not a fraud, only whether it has/has not been written about in depth. Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Princrete No! No! No! What the Malta Today article proves is that all here who are saying the EGS does not exist, is a fraud, has no real presence, are wrong. In Harry Potter terms you are playing the Professor Umbridge strategy. Refusing to see what is before your eyes and hiding behind regulatory bluster. 113.40.156.146 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC) @Pincrete I find your tone towards me very sneering and nasty. I am also shocked that absolutely any evidence that EGS is a real and nonquestionably legitimate school that is presented is dismissed with yet another nonsensical word, this time "mention". I am upset because I know *know* the information is wrong. I live in the real world which means, unless you kill me, I won't be going away. 113.40.156.146 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:113.40.156.146, what I was trying to do (in plain English, rather than Wiki-speak), was explain what is and is not 'reliable information', as far as policy here. The only reliable info in the 'Malta' source is as I described, and is what we call a 'mention'. You should understand that what you (or I, or Daniel Kenneth), 'know to be true', is simply going to be ignored, for reasons that should be obvious. I'm sorry that you are offended by my attempts to explain policy and put your mind(s) at ease about the 'fraud' remark above, which is as much a time-waster as your 'personal testimony' is. Neither constitute 'reliably sourced information'. Pincrete (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

[@Princrete} I am not talking about policy, I am talking about your interpretation of evidence. You use the word "mention" inappropriately as a way of evading the obvious. And I think personal testimony is of huge importance here. Real people are being affected by all the crazy inaccuracies and allegations and willful misinterpretation of evidence. I won't shut up about this. 113.40.156.146 (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I was just walking past when I stopped to watch this sideshow. An editor here has been removing other people's comments. One instance I have reverted where the deletion seemed clearly wrong. Other cases I think are wrong but I have left them because I am not completely certain. It may well be obBvious to whoever closes this but the history of this discussion will have to be inspected for improper or biassed deletions. Thincat (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello all. I have just sent an email to info-en-o@wikimedia.org regarding Daniel Kenneth's disgraceful comment about EGS. Now, I have a feeling that this is quite a useless email to be contacting so can anyone else suggest a better contact. User; Jytdog, you were quick to call me out about legal stuff. But what about Daniel Kenneth's comment. Allegations based on heresay that are of a damaging nature. Why does your legal radar fail when his transgressions surface. Why the double standard here? Tell me Jytog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.40.156.146 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 113.40.156.146 (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your question is fake. If it were a real question i would answer it. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How can a question be fake? What an immature answer. You can't justify yourself. I caught you out on your double standards. 113.40.156.146 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Rhetorical questions are not authentic; they aren't actually seeking understanding. Also questions with baked-in false assumptions are not authentic: "Does your mom know you beat your wife?" is a fake question. If you want to know why your statement isn't OK in Wikipedia, and the other one is OK in Wikipedia, then ask about that. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No it wasn't a rhetorical question. Daniel Kenneth says EGS is a fraud. I say what I said (can't say it again, can I). Why is Daniel Kenneth not reprimanded whilst I am? He did something of questionable legality (can I say that?). Would I be allowed to call people frauds? "Daniel Kenneth is a fraud", "Jytdog is a fraud". Is that the way it works here.Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are still asking me "does your mom know you beat your wife?" You are assuming the speech acts are the same, and they aren't. Ask a real question.  Look this conversation doesn't belong here.  I am hatting it.  Ask me on your Talk page.  Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as this is acceptable for now, this can be improved as needed. SwisterTwister   talk  22:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * CommentBelow a list of sources which does show up the organization's notability.


 * Giorgio Agamben, , , Italian philosopher.


 * Pierre Alferi, , , , French writer and filmmaker.


 * Alain Badiou, , , , , , , French philosopher.


 * Jean Baudrillard, French philosopher.


 * [[Philippe Beck], , , , French poet.


 * Victor Burgin, British artist and writer.


 * Judith Butler, , , American philosopher.


 * Eduardo Cadava, , American Theorist and Critic.


 * Hélène Cixous, French writer.


 * Simon Critchley, , , American philosopher.


 * Alessandro De Francesco, Italian poet and writer.


 * Manuel De Landa, Mexican/American philosopher.


 * Anne Dufourmantelle, French philosopher and psychoanalyst.


 * Elie During, French philosopher.


 * Mike Figgis, American filmmaker.


 * Christopher Fynsk, American philosopher


 * Heiner Goebbels, , German composer and director.


 * Peter Greenaway, , British Filmmaker.


 * Michael Hardt, , , Amercian philosopher.


 * Martin Hielscher, German editor and writer.


 * Chris Kraus, , American writer.


 * Sylvère Lotringer, , French philosopher.


 * Catherine Malabou, , , French philosopher.


 * Carl Mitcham, American philosopher.


 * Jean-Luc Nancy, , French philosopher.


 * François Noudelmann, French philosopher.


 * Laurence Rickels, , , , American media theorist.


 * Avital Ronell, , , , , , American philosopher.


 * Hubertus von Amelunxen, , , German theorist, curator and artist.


 * Margarethe von Trotta, German filmmaker.


 * Slavoj Žižek, , , , , , , , , , , , Slovenian philosopher and essayist.


 * Alenka Zupančič, , , Slovenian philosopher. Claudioalv (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC).

-- Claudioalv (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to review all of those sources, but I suspect that they help (at most) demonstrate that the professors themselves are notable, but do not contain more than mentions of the EGS. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Cordless LarryIf you review just the first one, it says that "Giorgio Agamben, an Italian philosopher and political theorist, teaches at the IUAV University in Venice and holds the Baruch Spinoza Chair at the European Graduate School". I do think that this notable professor would not teach in a School someone in this page defines as "fraud". What is the Wiki standard to say is notable?.Claudioalv (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether the EGS is a "fraud" is a completely different question to whether it is notable. Notability is judged according to whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Mentions aren't significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the 83 above mentions are just coverage?Claudioalv (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If they all just say something like "Professor X is a professor at the European Graduate School", then they do not amount to significant coverage of the EGS. Significant coverage would be provided by whole articles about the institution itself, not its staff. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Each of the 83 above sources you can verify stated that Professor X was conferred a Phd from EGS or professor X is teaching, taught or doing seminars at the EGS. If the staff is notable, also the school would be same. Am I wrong?. Claudioalv (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're wrong about that. Notability is not inherited. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, you are saying that so each of the 83 sources plus the sources about the school (between them, Nyu press, stanford press, the guardian, bbc news), are just irrelevant to you because notability is not inherited. Of course I find this argument weak, but I do accept other people opinion. There is nothing more to discuss here.Claudioalv (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I can't believe this is still going on. It's been more than a month. I haven't assessed whether the "keep" opinions are overwhelming and compelling, but one thing should be almost immediately clear to someone coming here: there is no consensus to delete this article. Maybe there is consensus to keep, but there certainly isn't consensus to delete. Could it be left alone so that people who care about it can continue editing it, while people who don't care about this school can continue building an encyclopedia on other articles? LjL (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * People here do not care about EGS article. If they would, they can see that the article does host some false information which needs to go. However, an administrator [Guy] blocked me and full protected the article so no one can further edit it. This means that Wiki needs consensus, but even if I provided proof of the accreditation, evidence that American sources which Wiki rely to say the school is not accredited are outdated (except Texas), the article content has not changed yet. I asked for RfC, but we are waiting for an involved administrator who close it and the result would be reflected in the article. If you are one of these (univolved administrator) can you please have a look at the Rfc Section which was opened almost two months ago? thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE WP:CORPDEPTH is defined as "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The coverage is trivial. The individuals who are arguing keep (User:Claudioalv and User:Murtagh1585) are WP:SPA. Just check their history here and here [] []. CLOSING ADMIN: TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN REVIEWING THEIR ARGUMENT. I'd like to re-state what User:Jytdog mentioned: if the school was founded in Switzerland and recently opened a location in Malta, why is there no Swiss news coverage? Why is this the third time EGS is being nominated? Why are there SPA accounts defending EGS? Is EGS manufacturing these press coverage and then using it to cheat their way into Wikipedia? Did it not work on Swiss newspapers and hence that's why they didn't receive any mentions in the original country they were founded in? The history of EGS on Wikipedia isn't a clean track record. They're manipulating the system and should definitely be kicked off. CerealKillerYum (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the coverage I provided in my !vote above is "trivial"; they're entire long articles devoted to the topic: – 19 ¶,  – 19 ¶,  – 13 ¶. North America1000 05:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Northamerica1000 Ok those are not trivial but those three, "School that spawns activists is to offer courses in Malta," "Education Minister says foreign universities’ identity to remain classified," and "Swiss grad school seeks university status in Malta," fails WP:SUSTAINED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CerealKillerYum (talk • contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[@CerealKillerYum] You are engaging in ad hominen attacks and expressing an obvious grudge and hostility towards EGS ('they re manipulating the system' etc.) that suggests you are less than fair and impartial on this issue. Murtagh1585 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And you're a SPA account with 18 total edits, all of which are about EGS. Do you work for them? CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * talk I do not understand what is your problem with the SP accounts as they are able to post contributions as long as they do respect the community rules. Being partial or COI user or an user with connection with EGS does not mean that they are saying nonsense. Every info I provided is supported by primary and secondary sources (between them I note the guardian, bbc, nyu press, stanford press and many others). Look carefully what Jytdog said about the inaccuracies of the current article "Accreditation section - current version, critique, and draft new section" and the american sources which need to go because they do not reflect the real world. If anything has not happened so far is because the uninvolved administrator does not take care of the issue or he/she is busy. It was openeded a rfc more tham 2 months ago and we are still waiting for him/her.Claudioalv (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral Comment As a bystander who has watched this unfold, I feel it's time for an admin to settle this once and for all. This AfD has been open over a month at this point, and closure is badly needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * agreed. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the sources brought up by Cunard are sufficient for notability. The fact that people associated with this institution have (apparently) been behaving badly on WP is not a relevant consideration for an AFD, since AFDs are decided by notability, and bad behaviour has no inherent impact on notability. SJK (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is tied up in a never-ending battle with EGS-affiliated editors who are aggressively trying to scrub it of sourced information reflecting this institution's lack of proper academic accreditation, particularly in the United States. The EGS is listed on multiple government websites as a known diploma mill with substandard academics. Its presence on WP is likely just being used as a vehicle to promote the school and give it more credibility than it actually has. Kizezs (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The link you are posting is no longer true. The current official link is the following and Jytdog has already address it. When you say "listed on multiple government websites", please post the "multiple" you are referring. By the way, the school does not operate in the U.S. so I do not understand why it is so crucial to you the "U.S. accreditation". The school operates in Malta and Switzerland and was recently licensed as a University according to Maltese law.Claudioalv (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * – I don't think the Maine Department of Education is a reliable or authoritative source as to whether non-US educational institutions are accredited outside the United States. I think they are likely a reliable source for whether an educational institution within Maine is accredited or not. They say of the "European Graduate School" that "This supplier appears to be approved by Swiss cantons, but its degrees are not recognized for use at other Swiss universities" – that may or may not be an accurate statement of the situation in Switzerland, but what is the Maine Department of Education's source for this information? They don't give their source. I don't think the government of Maine is a reliable source as to what is happening in Switzerland. Now, if you had a Swiss government website, I'd say that would be a reliable source for what is happening in Switzerland. Furthermore, the Maine Department of Education's website seems to be outdated, since I understand the EGS has now opened a branch in Malta, but the Maine DOE website doesn't mention it. Given that accreditation is a time-sensitive thing (there is a process for gaining accreditation, and it takes time, and a school which lacks accreditation today may gain it in the future), how do we know whether the Maine DOE's information on Switzerland is up to date either? SJK (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The EGS's website claims its degrees are valid in the U.S. Several U.S. government sources say explicitly that they are not accredited in the U.S. and designate them a "diploma mill." Here is a similar list from Texas . This reliably sourced information is part of the EGS article and should be there as it is highly relevant to their institutional status. That said, several extremely vexatious editors who are connected to the EGS have been attempting for years to sanitize this information from the article. That's what prompted this nomination - a long pattern of having to deal with people who are plainly connected to this school and are using the WP article to promote it to English-speaking audiences. Kizezs (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how having or lacking US accreditation is relevant for an institution which is based in Europe. US authorities determine accreditation for higher educational institutions in the US; they have no authority for institutions located outside of the US. I am an Australian, I went to an Australian university, as far as I am aware no Australian university is accredited under US law because US law doesn't apply in Australia – our universities are accredited under our own system (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency). Since this institution is based in Switzerland and Malta, the relevant question is what is its status under Swiss and Maltese law, and linking to websites of US state governments (which have zero authority outside of the US, indeed outside of their own states) is irrelevant. (As far as "EGS's website claims its degrees are valid in the U.S", I don't what exact claim you are referring to, so I can't judge that claim.) In terms of editors associated with this school removing information on their lack of accreditation in the US – well, even though its WP:COI editing, I actually agree with them on that point, it is an irrelevant consideration. SJK (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So looking at their page about accreditation, they seem to make the follow claims (1) they are accredited by the cantonal government of the Canton of Wallis in Switzerland, (2) they are accredited by the government of Malta, specifically the Maltese National Commission for Further and Higher Education, (3) under EU law, their accreditations in Switzerland and Malta apply throughout the EU, (4) US Council of Higher Education Accreditation recognizes the Maltese National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) as a valid accrediting body for Malta (5) they have been accepted by the federal US Department of Education as a body eligible for US student loans. Now, I can't verify the accuracy of these claims they make, but US state education department websites are insufficient to rebut them, since US state education departments are not authorities on any of those 5 points (and, the point at which they claim to be approved by US federal dept of education for student loan funding, none of the state government pages you cited contradict that). At best we can say these claims are unverified, no reliable source has been produced sufficient to contradict them. SJK (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * - You are misunderstanding how accreditation works in higher ed. If I get a degree at an Australian university and then apply for a job in the United States with it, I need to show that the foreign accreditation carries over to the United States (and vice versa for a US degree in Australia). In cases involving well established universities, this is uncontroversial and usually automatic. So most accredited degrees in Australia will be carried over. But problems often emerge when the foreign accreditor is not well established or when the university's accreditation claim is sketchy. BOTH of those conditions apply here - the claimed accreditor is a little-known council in a small country that only has very few accredited schools (there's really only one actual university in Malta - the University of Malta) AND the EGS itself is a non-traditional university that doesn't possess any traditional accreditation certificate from a major body. In fact, their campus is in Switzerland - not Malta - and it appears the Maltese accreditation applies only to one single "study abroad" course that they do in Malta. Also the claimed Swiss accreditation is an educational certificate given at the Canton level and is NOT recognized as a university accreditation on the national level in Switzerland, or in the EU at large (yes, they claim otherwise on their website but that should be taken as promotional material from a source that has actively tried to suppress negative information about its US designation as a degree mill). In effect they are claiming that they were approved by a town council, and because that town council is in Switzerland it also gives them the automatic approval of Switzerland (it actually doesn't), and because Switzerland has bilateral agreements with the EU that makes it EU-approved (which is also not true). In reality, all they actually have is the town council. As a result of multiple irregularities of this type (also including the fact that they don't operate a traditional university - it's run as a 3 week summer seminar that they hand out "degrees" from at the end of the summer, as opposed to the normal 9 months of classes most universities use), several US states do not recognize degrees from the EGS and designate them as a substandard program that doesn't transfer over. Kizezs (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If I applied for a job in the US, I don't think I need to "show that the foreign accreditation carries over to the United States". I tell them I have a degree from university X in Australia, it's up to the employer to decide whether that's a relevant consideration in making the hiring decision, and how much further investigation they wish to do into my claim (maybe they demand copies of my academic transcript, maybe they just take my word for it, it's their choice). Maybe they say "your university isn't prestigious enough for us, I never heard of it before, who cares whether it is accredited or not". Maybe they say "you've been working for 10 years in the industry, we don't really care whether you have a degree or not". It's up to each employer to decide. And I don't know enough about Swiss or Maltese law to judge the accuracy of their claims to Swiss or Maltese accreditation, or how those accreditations apply under the EUs's mutual recognition of higher education processes. But US state government websites are not a reliable source to decide questions about Maltese or Swiss or EU law. The various things you say, they may be true, they may be not, but there is no reliable source given for them. And a canton is not a "town council", it is essentially equivalent to a state government, so at the same level as Texas or Maine. And the Texas government link you cite says "Status under review per European Graduate School's request", so if they are currently reviewing its status, we should take its position with a grain of salt. Overall I'd say, you might be right, but you don't have enough reliable sources to support your position. Now if there was a Swiss or Maltese government website listing them as "unaccredited" or a "diploma mill", or if there was a published detailed analysis of their situation under Swiss/Maltese law, that would likely constitute RS to support your position, but a couple of cursory mentions on US state government websites, which aren't obviously authorities on the question and fail to cite their own sources and appear to be out of date, don't cut it. If we can't find enough RS to address this question one way one or another, the best course of action is simply to not discuss it until sufficient RS appear. SJK (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * They also DO NOT have U.S. Department of Education recognition. They have a U.S. Department of Education registered ID number to accept student loans from banks (usually called a FAFSA number), which you can get by simply filling out the necessary forms to be granted a number. Degree mills have been playing that game for decades. The US Department of Education evaluates accreditation based on whether the school is a member in good standing with an accrediting body that is recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. The EGS is not a member of any body recognized by CHEA, and they are simply using their number - which is similar to a tax ID number - to claim that they have something they do not and to obscure the fact that they are not accredited outright by any body that is generally recognized for reciprocity in the US. Kizezs (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand, they have Approval to Participate in the Federal Student Financial Aid Programs. I understand a lot of non-US universities (including the one I went to in Australia) get this so US students can get student loans under the US system to pay their loans. That's all I said they have, and that's all their website appears to say they have either. Your statement "They also DO NOT have U.S. Department of Education recognition" is vague since "recognition" has multiple meanings. If "recognition" means "Approval to Participate in the Federal Student Financial Aid Programs" then yes they do have recognition; if "recognition" means "accreditation under the US domestic system of higher education accreditation" then they don't have "recognition". The questions they ask for approval appear pretty involved, so I don't think it is some kind of automatic process where they'll just approve anything under the sun if you ask. It's not like a Taxpayer ID Number which is issued just about automatically to everyone without question; you have to at least claim the right things to get student loan approval (to what extent the US Department of Education verifies the claims applicants make, as opposed to just taking them at their word, is a matter I don't have sufficient knowledge to comment on.) SJK (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that to get a US tax ID number, I need to fill out a single page form, whereas to get US student loan approval I need to fill out a 57 page form – they aren't really comparable processes. Getting student loan approval is a lot more involved than getting an IRS taxpayer ID number. SJK (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2016 (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.