Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European 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   keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

European University

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a private business school that fails WP:CORP, and the article here is essentially acting as advertising. Their own web site is pretty slick, pushing all the right buttons -- but scratch the surface and there isn't much there to establish notability by Wikipedia standards. For instance, they have a "Press articles" section here to build cred, but it works out that most of these involve either incidental mentions (here, bottom left column, in an article that has nothing to do with the "university") or paid placements in glossy travel mags (here, pure advertising). If this is the best they can come up with, then they've basically done our job for us in showing how little coverage this thing has in reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- not your typical WP:PROF case, but as they claim to be a "university"...  —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to see some accreditation if this is going to count as a university.  I can't find anything of the sort on the website and the accusations made on this blog (not a conclusive, reliable source, I know) make me suspect that it isn't.  RJC  TalkContribs 14:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This blog post is interesting too, and the source in the comment about the revoking of their authorisation from the Catalonian government does seem reliable. This story from the Straits Times seems a reliable source too. I'm out of time right now but if we can add suitable wording and reliable sources like this to the article, I might be in favour of keeping it as a service to prospective students. Qwfp (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the logic of turning this into a stub that refers, on the basis of the reliable sources available, to its unaccredited status (instead of deletion). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While WP:ONEEVENT mentions only individuals, I think that the logic of it should apply to corporations/organizations, as well: if the only reliable sources that constitute more than incidental coverage relate to some scandal or accreditation failure, I think that this university would fail the GNG. If this were a perennial loser like Lyndon LaRouche, on the other hand, then we might keep on article on it.  My feeling is that organizations of this type (assuming that it actually does lack accreditation or any significance beyond its lack of accreditation) shouldn't have articles on them:  it would have to be monitored constantly for WP:SPAM and tendentious assertions that it has to be made more "balanced" to comply with WP:NPOV.  I have an article from an accredited diploma mill on my watchlist and it isn't pretty.   RJC  TalkContribs 20:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —Qwfp (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless bona fides of institution are proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. I had a chance to look over the links posted by Qwpf above, especially the news article, and I'd say that this place fails WP:CORP.  It also doesn't seem to have generated sufficient scandal to pass the WP:GNG.  No accreditation and incidental mention in coverage of another for-profit education organization owned by the same parent company.  The most reliable information I can find about it comes from blogs where the posters complain about their experiences with it; that kind of blog is on the low end of the WP:RS spectrum.   RJC  TalkContribs 04:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but discard the puffery in the current article and replace it with RS content that tells this outfit's real story. This is clearly an unaccredited institution, but it appears that it may have been accredited in the past (probably under different names) and it looks like it still has significant ability to market itself (the website is far more credible than the typical diploma mill site). Two solid sources are the Swiss Embassy in Singapore stating that it lacks accreditation in Switzerland and the government of Catalonia revoking their authority to operate in Barcelona. It seems to also operate in Barcelona under the name European University for Management Studies; that institution is listed in some directories (example) and is listed as a candidate for accreditation by the European Council for Business Education. I think it may be the same institution, based in Switzerland, that formerly called itself the "European Graduate School" and is listed as an unaccredited on the State of Oregon list. Searching on some of these other names is likely to yield some good sources. --Orlady (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - though unaccredited it is a large institution that offers tertiary education in several countries. TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)ov article is a good idea. Since when do we limit Wikipedia
 * Keep It's a degree granting institution of higher education, and verifiable information is available. Clear articles on these unaccredited colleges are very important things to do with NPOV, as we can. The good and bad things in life are equally important.  One Event does not in any case apply to anything other than individuals. Nor should it, nor would there be any general consensus that it should.  If this is proposed as a serious argument, the Village Pump is the place, rather than trying to remove individual articles on something that is deliberately not policy. We want to avoid scandal, but that is something we know how to do.    DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw -- I have done a bit of searching and discovered WP:UNIGUIDE, which I was unaware of previously. Since the guideline says that all colleges/universities are notable, the article on this one cannot be deleted.  (I have some misgivings about such a sweeping statement, but this is not the place to resolve them.  It does however beg the question of what a "university" is, what standard has to be met to merit that description...)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. So, every two-bit operation that calls itself a university gets to avoid WP:CORP because of a guideline that none of the editors of WP:N have linked to as being a related page, and a poorly worded one at that?  The discussion page makes it clear that the only reason the guideline doesn't insist upon accreditation is because some religious institutions refuse to apply.  I think WP:IAR applies here (I shiver to say it…).   RJC  TalkContribs 14:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point (given the existence of other delete votes) a withdrawal should be regarded just as another keep vote rather than as a reason to terminate the AfD speedily. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I would still be happy to see it deleted (though I think it's unlikely, given three keep votes). RJC, your post is precisely what my begged question is about.  I took DGG's post to mean that all degree-granting higher education institutions are considered notable; when I found WP:UNIGUIDE I assumed this was the basis for his statement.  But I agree that this is an undesirable situation.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Spamming has begun -- as RJC predicted, a "friend" of this institution has arrived on the page to start puffing it up again. I've left a message on his/her talk page User talk:Omrganews and reverted some edits, but I will of course need to stay clear of 3rr (unless those edits are considered vandalism, I suppose).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unqualified Delete in view of recent editing of article. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment - The fact that an article attracts spam is not a valid reason to delete the article. --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since the only verified information we have regards accreditation, this article may need to be trimmed to the introduction and accreditation sections if it is kept (which seems likely, given the discussion here). Statements about the faculty's competence and alumni success don't appear to have any sources.   RJC  TalkContribs 13:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just because a private company calls itself a university doesn't make it exempt under WP:UNIGUIDE. If that were the case, every diploma mill would be considered notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Diploma mills can be notable, too. Some of us take pride in developing independently sourced articles about institutions that might appear to be legitimate universities but lack academic recognition -- and may be cheating their students (who think they are obtaining an education that will be recognized by the world at large) and/or the world at large (that unwittingly accepts fake or substandard credentials from these outfits). --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as documentating its lack of accreditation could well be a valuable service to prospective students. I think enough of us are watching this article to deal with WP:COI edits, and take further action if needbe. Seems to me the way this article has been changed from an WP:ADVERT through uncovering reliable sources of its lack of accreditation is an example of Wikipedia at its best. It appears that this institution has used legal threats to suppress previous criticism. Now they've discovered they can't control the content of the article, they're probably hoping it gets deleted. Qwfp (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, but not accredited.  The article needs to be closely monitored for POV elves removing the section on lack of accreditation.  Doing a Google "Street View" search of their campus addresses leads to some interesting back alleys.  Maybe they can compare notes with Linda Christas. - Richfife (talk) 21:01, 2 September 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.