Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intercultural Open 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. Some problems resolved, nom withdrawn Black Kite 11:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Intercultural Open University

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

"Alternative university" whose status/accreditation is questioned. Article may have been started by a proponent of the institution, writing with a positive slant and COI. Other contributors have then found and added less positive material. Original authors are now becoming more familiar with wikipedia policies and would like to have article deleted. However db-author was rejected due to others' contributions. Concerns about notability, original research, conflict of interest vs coatrack...my own personal view below, but deserves a broader hearing. Martinp (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw as nom (if that is permissible in the AFD process). There seems to now be active consensus among a range of editors of the article that they can and wish to work towards an article on this topic which meets WP standards, and who all feel the institution is notable. I am still personally still a bit skeptical, but think as a matter of principle we should not get in the way of committed editors working together to bring an article, whatever its origin, "up to snuff" with awareness of the challenges involved. Assuming a withdrawal like this is meaningful (I'm not trying to terminate discussion if it would be helpful), an AFD regular is invited to close this discussion. Martinp (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. If this were a clearly notable institution, we should not hesitate to have an NPOV article on it, and editors over time would improve the article, etc. But there appears to be no independent significant coverage of this institution beyond its own material plus brief mentions by guides to "alternative education". So I think it fails the notability test and should be deleted. Someone may disagree with me and claim it borderline-passes the notability test; in that case, I think just as we have begun to delete borderline BLP's that the subject wants deleted, we should delete this as well. The encyclopedia will not be well served by an article clearly created with a mistaken understanding of how WP works, which is doomed to be starved for independent sources and will run the risk of either being promo or coatrack. Martinp (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it were a mere diploma mill or some similar scam, it might be best handled on a list relating to the topic.  But this is such an institution that has attracted the attention of UNESCO, as well as apparently the subject of a cautionary note in a book about long distance higher education.  This looks like substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources to me.  The BLP policy is a special exception to more generally applicable principles; I've never been fond of it myself, and it needs to be very carefully contained and strictly confined to articles about named individuals.  This article, by contrast, might serve as a wholesome caution to spammers about how Wikipedia actually works. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A mention by another institution and a "cautionary note" in a book are, in my mind, not enough for notability. I personally feel BLP is a core principle and should be applied broadly. Basically, WP is an encyclopedia, not a battleground, shaming board, or agent for societal change. This was an article started by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. If we decide to keep it, it should be because we feel it is a notable and worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia, not because we want to say "gotcha" to a COI author. Martinp (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is a page (PDF) describing this institution under the category Dubious institutions with dubious professors furnished with titles or experience that somehow connect them with UNESCO - the heading of the article is WARNING! Bogus Institutions &ldquo; recognized &rdquo; by UNESCO Autarch (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not as a gotcha, but because the UNESCO incident gives notability, and the solution to WP:COATRACK issues is to remove the coats, not the rack. So hack out the unref/npov. It's a uni, an article is appropriate. Doesn't have to be EITHER "Gotcha" to COI OR better for WP, it can be both. --  Chzz  ►  16:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure inclusion is as simple "if it's a uni, and article is appropriate". However, the more I dig, the more I would dispute that the UNESCO mention confers notability. It is a passing mention as an example in bullet point 8 of a nine point list of ways educational institutions overstate their UNESCO linkages, according to UNESCO. The passing mention occurs only on the web site of UNESCO Nairobi. The main UNESCO website has the corresponding page here with no institution names mentioned. Anyway, my point of view is clear, I will now disengage and leave to other voices to decide. Martinp (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete unless any concrete, reliable and mainstream sources can be found to establish genuine existence, notability etc. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —TerriersFan (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep After having a Speedy Deletion request, for what was little more than a promotional spam piece, declined (Note: an earlier version was Speed'ed) I have found the article's original editors to be amenable to working within the Wikipedia guidelines to try and create a notable and verifiable article.. 'Alternative' subjects such as this can struggle to achieve strong notability, and this article dangles by a thin thread of notability, but I feel the seeds are there and as such it should be kept and supported.   BUT, on the other hand,  I acknowledge that the inclusion of such articles confers, by default, a measure of notability on the subject that might not otherwise exist.Lame Name (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Just adding input that quite a bit of effort has been made to make this article acceptable to Wikipedia standards. We the contributors have been educated as to the criteria used by the editors.  We will continue to work very hard to make this article achieve a stronger notability.Stretch call (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a degree granting university. it was heavily spammy, someone removed the spam, & gave an honest statement about the non-accredited nature. the original contributor decided in that case it was better deleted, and asked for deletion /.Several admins,including myself, refused, on the basis that others had contributor and that one doesnt get a veto over content. I tink ancceptable NPOV article can be written.We have a special obligation in a sense to cover universities of this nature, where there may be no other objective information. DGG (talk) 10:39, 5 March 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.