Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine 2


 * 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. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

NN. Only one secondary source available. ongoing editwarring ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. All sources but one are primary sources. Ongoing and relentless disruption. See also Requests for arbitration/St Christopher ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete and salt. Agree with Jossi Uponleft (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC) — Uponleft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Uponleft is a confirmed sockpuppet of Traden and has been caught by administrators attempting to defraud this AfD. See here for more info. Bstone (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I thought that Traden was a confirmed sock of Uponleft. (I suppose the root problem is that the metaphor is meaningless; the fact is that these are two UIDs for the same person. Still, so far as we use metaphors, we should get them right.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. Uponleft is the puppetmaster and Traden was the sock. Sorry for the confusion. Bstone (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: I don't quite agree about the primariness of the sources, but bottom line is that this institution is marginally notable at best for being mentioned in passing as unaccredited by various US states and the UK. This is all I could find on Google News, which doesn't seem enough to build a good article. The constant campaigns to whitewash the article by rotating groups of SPA's are a pain to deal with as well. I'm reluctant to "reward" such tactics, but the bottom line is that we are better off without this article. It's a nexus of disruption and will never be a decent article without better sources, which don't exist. MastCell Talk 22:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Many RS and 3rd party sources have covered this school. It passes the notability test quite well. Further, WP:SCHOOL demonstrates that this university does indeed pass the notability test. Bstone (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I only see one secondary source, all others being primary sources, or used in a away that is borderline in its compliance with WP:NOR. Basically, a marginally notable institution, constant disruption, and not enough material for an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No Vote -- IMHO, deletion of this page would serve only one purpose :: to enable apologists to "prove" that the doubts, criticism etc. had been removed from Wikipedia, ad to argue to that had been done because ST.C was a 100% genuine institution. In addition, the soi-disant edit wars indicate notability to me. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agreed with Jossi 69.244.177.252 (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This article in the BBC does a good job of establishing notability. Plus, the previous AfD and ArbCom case also lend credence to it's notability. Bstone (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One article is not enough for a quality and NPOV WP article, and an ArbCom case is not basis to assert notability, on the contrary: it only demonstrates what a bloody waste of community time this marginal organization has already taken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree with a lot of that. Marginal, yes; bloody waste of time, yes. But I'm sure that a short paragraph would be helpful. We may appreciate good graphic design, but no graphic design is going to save our lives or kill us. Dunno about you, but on two (brief) occasions I've been under general anesthetic and my life has depended on good medical education. I'd say that, unlike education in graphic design, medical education (together with any failure of medical education) is a matter of public concern. -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Colleges of medicine are notable. That this is technically a branch campus does not make it less notable--the international "branches" of notable universities are as notable as any other major part of a university. Anfd for that matter, many medical schools are and have always been located at branch campuses other than the main university. By continuing practice, unaccredited does not mean non-notable--the information is important and there are always discussions of the accreditation for references and links, such as the bbc. One article from such a source is quite enough for an article.  And the difficulty of maintaining an article has never been accepted as  reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please add it to your watchlist then... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that if this article is kept, a much heavier hand needs to be employed in enforcing the ArbCom sanctions against the unending parade of sock/meatpuppets (some of which are in evidence at this AfD). Otherwise there's no point. MastCell Talk 18:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as it isn't you doing the enforcing. You cannot remain neutral on this subject. Other admins (NOT JzG) that were previously involved were much more neutral and would be a significantly better choice for maintaining neutrality. Uponleft (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept, you and your fellow meatpuppets will be restricted under the terms of the ArbCom case, whether by me or by another admin. The underlying problem is larger and more persistent than just your recent slew of accounts, though. MastCell Talk 21:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and prove your worthless accusations. Oh, that's right, you've already said you can't. Typical nonsense from an admin shill with an agenda. Uponleft (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that any admin reviewing the contributions of your recent slew of accounts will find ample evidence, to the standard that Wikipedia requires, of agenda-driven meatpuppetry. I'm not sure whom you think I'm shilling for, or what you think my agenda is, beyond preventing a relatively clear-cut and well-documented abuse of Wikipedia. Your agenda, on the other hand, could not be clearer. MastCell Talk 21:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's one of your Admin friends then I have no doubt that they will find what you ask them to find. You have a solid history of such behavior and abuse so I wouldn't be surprised by you continuing this trend. Uponleft (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Delete,and Salt. I would have to agree with Jossi and Mast Cell's comments. This school is not notable. Remember the criteria for notability involves "significant" "substantial" coverage by secondary sourceS. The accreditation status doesn't influence this decision either, accredited or non accredited, same argument applies, and the information being "important" or community interest does not lend to notability. Remember, notability "is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance."
 * Keep This school, while not exactly high profile, is notable as a college of medicine (albeit with controversial credentials).  I imagine people in the community interested in more information about this institution may find this entry useful.  Andrew73 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as deleting the article sending a message of authenticity, that is a personal opinion that some may have. On the contrary, some may also be of the opinion that it was removed because it was a non-notable organization  (which the latter happens to be the case, by definition, as discussed above).  Who's to guess what people may infer by an article deletion, or if they would even notice at all? The endless disruption, article going to ArbCom, and edit warring only serve as further weight for trying to make something out of nothing (trying to make something notable which it clearly is not) and wasting everyones' time. Traden (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)  — Traden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  *::  is a confirmed sock whose only edit is to this AfD. Bstone (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, improve, and freeze if necessary. An institution of this name verifiably exists (or verifiably recently existed) in Britain. In some countries, institutions calling themselves medical schools are perhaps numerous and unnotable. In Britain, they're so few that anybody related to medical education may well be able to list the lot without being prompted. (Judge for yourself: Template:Medical Schools (United Kingdom).) Users of Wikipedia can reasonably expect to see it written up. Moreover, they may well benefit from reading a fair description, especially if they are thinking of studying at the place or employing one of its graduates. The institution has been written up on bbc.co.uk and also in the Guardian; it is thus at least arguably noteworthy for those who think noteworthiness is conferred by media coverage. The article has indeed become something of a battleground between one faction that is skeptical of any claim made for the institution and another that's keen to remove any mention of criticism. An apparently analogous article about a person might well be deleted on "BLP"-related grounds; however, I'd say (1) that the coverage questioning claims made by or for the institution is itself unusual, substantial, and noteworthy (far more so than is the debunking of, say, "Sollog"; see here), and (2) that an institution that has verifiably promoted itself as a worthwhile medical school thereafter has no right of privacy for this promotion. The verifiability of any claim or counterclaim can be thrashed out on the article's talk page and the article itself can be sprotected or even fully protected for as long as is necessary. (If the talk page too is disrupted, that too can be sprotected.) Near-permanent full protection is of course not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, but deletion of an article on an institution such as this strikes me as a considerably worse option. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Elaboration: By talk page disruption, I don't mean heated argument or even name-calling; I mean such things as deletion of or tampering with others' comments. -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia has become rather fit at handling articles like this in a helpful way. Moreover, as Hoary says, readers will find fair, sourced coverage of this school helpful. A UK branch of a med school is indeed notable and moreover, the topic does have verifiable coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep We keep articles on elementary schools, so it'd be highly inconsistent to delete articles on medical schools. I know that this article is a source of ongoing trouble, and I appreciate the good faith nomination. Nonetheless, the topic meets the de facto standards for notability of educational establishments (it exists).  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a nasty history of manipulation of the article, and the current version of this article has serious problems, but those aren't good reasons for deleting an article. The institution is notable, if only for the controversy it has aroused. --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heartfelt plea: Will everyone !voting keep please watchlist the article? I enjoy surprisingly familiar vitriol from 2-day-old single-purpose accounts as much as the next admin, but the more eyes the better on this one. JzG used to watch it, but he's inactive at present and I am a poor substitute. MastCell Talk 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone should close this with keep, but I am not sure it is worth the aggravation... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (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.