Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine (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. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  16:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable acupuncturist school. All of 36 students, and no references -- other than mention in a trade magazine -- attesting to its notability at all. Calton | Talk 08:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (articulate)  20:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Previous AFD explained that this is a masters degree-granting institution. We have strong policy/guideline/practice that all high schools and up are notable. (user:Orthodox2014, what do u think?) do  ncr  am  05:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, per WP:NSCHOOL, we have a strong guideline that requires schools to pass either WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The general tendency to keep college and university articles, as discussed at, does not exempt any article from meeting this standard. Ibadibam (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * N.b.: College and university article advice is an essay; see below. -- do ncr  am  06:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that what currently appears at wp:NSCHOOL is no longer what it was. (I haven't participated in AFD much for 6 months or more.) Too bad, if this is a permanent change.  The standard previously avoided a zillion AFD discussions.  This must have been a major RFC discussion.  Too bad for Wikipedia if we now have to endure even more useless churning and destruction and disillusionment of good-faith contributors.  What is the status, could a pointer to discussions be provided?  If the standard has changed, then a wholesale treatment of articles should be done, rather than random one-by-one mostly unnoticed AFDs. -- do  ncr  am  03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: In fact there was no change of policy/practice, all that happened was that edits to the wp:ORG standard, including to the section wp:NSCHOOL, dropped the previous mention there of wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.  Per a new talk page discussion there, I have restored the link there.  Anyhow, wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does apply, and states that in practice we keep all high school and higher degree-granting institutions, as long as the existence of the school is verified.  Here, there is no question on the existence.  By long-standing practice, we KEEP the article.  To change the policy/practice would require a much larger discussion involving an RFC notice, etc., and IMHO it would not change. -- do  ncr  am  00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a statement of a trend, part of an essay, and not a guideline or policy in itself. Look, I'm not trying to argue for deletion; I'm just trying to challenge you to demonstrate a substantial reason to keep this page, apart from we don't usually delete colleges. Ibadibam (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But the discussion you refer to above as if it is to be relied upon (College and university article advice) is just an essay, also. And I am not familiar with it at all, while I have seen wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES referred to countless times in AFDs, and always settling the issue.  It is helpful to have a solid rule in practice.  Like in real life the U.S. court system and others work well by relying about precedents.  Rather than having to argue from scratch every issue every single time, we humans benefit from using precedents to settle what the interpretation of laws are in similar cases.  Editor Ibadibam, I assume you are acting in good faith, doing your best to interpret the guidelines/policies that apply here, and finding your way to one essay rather than another one, but I am afraid you are taking a different stance than the position that is settled and works.  I am not the best person to explain the original rationale and long history of decisions on notability of educational institutions, which got embodied into the text and usage of SCHOOLOUTCOMES;  i did not involve myself in the discussions that produced that evolution.  I think it is both good and bad that in Wikipedia any issue can be re-opened and argued again and again.  But if you want to do that, the correct forum is not in an isolated AFD.  The right forum would be the Talk page of a Notability guideline or policy, and probably with use of a formal RFC to attract wider attention. -- do  ncr  am  06:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of this discussion has been posted at wp:Wikiproject Schools. And I am mentioning this at the talk page of wp:NSCHOOL. -- do ncr  am  07:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, no coverage found in reliable sources. SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot and should not be used to override blatant violations of GNG and ORG. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 00:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine participants:, , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. it gives a master's degree, accredited by the program for accreditation in that suhbject.  therefore it is notable. The reason for adhering to this rule is that it avoids discussions like the present ones,by which every relatively minor college  would be challenged. As there are several tens of thousands, that's at least 10,000 afds. Based on past experience, the decisions  can be expected on the basis of prior experience to be essentially random, yielding no better results than if we simply kept them all, removing the fluff.  DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - it awards accredited post-graduate degrees. Such institutions have long been considered notable. WP:N states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." If necessary, then as established through countless AFDs, this is one of the 'occasional exceptions'. BTW kudos to Cunard for their courtesy in pinging previous commentators. Just Chilling (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, it meets notability guidelines (if only barely). - CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:01, 27 January 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.