Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Tuesday (real estate school)


 * 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   delete. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

First Tuesday (real estate school)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable license training institution. All provided references are either primary sources (the organizaton's own website) or trivial listings of the organization's membership in various organizations. Borders on spam. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a hasty and fallacious accusation.

While it is generally accepted primary sources may be biased, they are important, and frankly vital, to explaining or defining any bit of information, real estate schools included. In this particular case, less than half of the sources used are primary.

The rest come from outside sources. Trivial? Even without putting one's American Government bias or predisposition aside, California's Department of Real Estate (DRE), can hardly be called "trivial."

When considering this piece spam, which I'd imagine the original allegation is referring to §1 Advertisements masquerading as articles, please refer to article, Neutral Point of View. This particular page has been given special care as to not pose opinion as fact (evidenced by the eleven citations), no seriously contested assertion is ever presented as a fact, no uncontested assertion is presented as mere opinion, nor is judgmental or biased language used. As for indicating opposing views, given the nature of the information presented on this page, this issue was addressed by making it a point not to advertise, but merely inform. At no point does this page suggest the school defined is better than any others out there. Rather, it is simply defined, and with the mindset that first tuesday is a grounded and credible player in California's rich real estate history.

For a similar page reference, please visit Wikipedia's entry on Allied Schools (United States). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpalm01 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC) comment added by Cpalm01
 * Reply No, the California Department of Real Estate is not trivial. The coverage of first tuesday at said site is trivial.  The DRE link is merely a search engine in which one might search for accredited distance learning institutions.  All of the other references are of a similar nature.  If need be we can examine them one by one:
 * California DRE - already dismissed
 * List of memberships - being an affiliate of an association does not confer notability
 * CREAA.ORG Member List - see above
 * NAREE.ORG - doesn't even mention first tuesday
 * first tuesday General Information - Primary Source. Might verify facts, but does not verify notability.
 * Reverse Mortgage article - does not mention first tuesday or its founder Crane
 * 70/30 citation - verifies the fact in question, but again does not verify notability of first tuesday
 * DRE Licensing guidelines - See 70/30 citation
 * Remaining citations are to the school's own website.
 * In sum, no verification is provided that this organization meets notability criteria. And comparing your article to another article (Allied Schools (United States) in this case) is pointless for two reasons. Allied Schools is not a single school, but an corporation that operates multiple for-profit education centers.  As such, it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple publications, which cannot be said of first tuesday.  And even if the Allied Schools article were problematic, the presence of other poor articles on Wikipedia is not a valid reason to keep this poor article.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The referencing in the articel might establish some facts, but fails to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Trivial mentions do not show notability.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 15:26, 28 June 2011 (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.