Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JMC Academy (2nd 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 keep. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and a reasonable argument for notability of the institution based on size and reach. bd2412 T 03:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

JMC Academy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-self-accrediting university that does not have in-depth coverage at reliable secondary sources. While tertiary-education providers are usually considered notable by default, Australia has many tiny private sector universities that are non-notable. Per arguments made at the previous AfD for this subject, self-accreditation is an important threshold for determining the notability of private universities in Australia in the absence of coverage in reliable sources, and a threshold that the JMC Academy does not clear. I was able to find this strange article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which could potentially be considered in-depth coverage in a reliable source, except that the article is very strangely written, seems borderline promotional and does not have author attribution. signed,Rosguill talk 20:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt nothing has changed since the last time it was delete any recreation should be reviewed via appropriate discussion. Gnangarra 10:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep accretted post secondary degree granting is a bright line for notability. All such institutions deserve an article. It is part of the public good. A Wikipedia page is one way for employers to check if a school listed on a resume is real or diploma mill. If we suspend the bright line we get into arguing case by case if this or that school is "important" enough for a page. We even accept pages on schools that are government approved but not operating yet so this nomination is out of order and against long standing practiceLegacypac (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the definition of self-accrediting, I suspect that the argument that this was a critical marker of legitimacy for Australian universities (as asserted in the previous AfD) may have been incorrect, although I may be misinterpreting this new text. If it is indeed the case that real, legitimate tertiary educational institutions in Australia are generally not self-accrediting, then I agree with the argument above and no longer am in favor of deletion. I'd appreciate it if someone with more expertise could confirm what the meaning (and importance) of "self-accrediting" is in Australia. signed,Rosguill talk 22:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Information on self-accreditation can be found here. It has to be granted by the Australian Government and when granted, as here, it shows a high level of trust in the institution by the Government education department. Just Chilling (talk)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete now as it was deleted then. We are, as a community, moving away from the inherent notability standard of schools. And that's a good thing. It's what makes us an encyclopedia. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject has been presented. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a recognised degree-awarding tertiary education institution. The fact that it self-accrediting shows that it has passed the necessary rigorous examination by the Australian education department Kudos to the nominator for finding an in-depth source and their open-minded approach. There is another decent source, here. Looking across all the sources available, WP:ORG is clearly met. Further, reading the sources, this Academy plays an important role in creative industries education in this country. Finally, its opinions are quoted (and hence valued) in the media, for example, here by the HuffPost. Of course, it is not a good article that needs much editing and the removal of puffery but AFD is not cleanup and the need for cleanup is not a ground for deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not self-accrediting though. The confusion regarding that claim was as to what self-accreditation means (and whether it's important), but the sources for the article unambiguously state that the subject is not a self-accrediting school. signed,Rosguill talk 19:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. With 1800 students and three campuses it's clearly notable. The writing is promotional but that's reason to edit not delete. Ifnord (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - it's not an orphan, and does have three campuses. I fixed the logo and hatnoted for reference improvements.  Coverage is virtually non-existent, but there are at least two paywalled passing mentions in the Australian press [] (not the first one though - that's a sponsored ad). TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - the History section is all awards, that needs to be more factual about their growth. If not, then it doesn't belong.--JAMillerKC (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Good rationales above by Ifnord, and Just Chilling. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Not the strongest of keeps but I think a definite one. There are multiple official government references.  There are multiple referrals / recommendations by industry potential employer type organisations.  Has a recognised over 30 years establishment with multiple campuses.  There is sufficient WP:NEXIST to get it over the GNG line.  Aoziwe (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2018 (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.