Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Berkley


 * 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, no notability --Steve (Stephen)talk 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

University of Berkley

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable, non-accredited private organization. Has three WP:RS, but all are about the same issue: a 2005 court order. There doesn't seem to be much about this. I think this would be better served as a redirect to the real Berkley school. Arbustoo 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-notable. Change to a redirect to the real thing. Valentinian T / C 10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect, no notability asserted, appears to be an NN bible school. Redirect as per nom.  Lankiveil 11:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete redirect to University of California, Berkeley seems a stretch, is there another that I'm unaware of? Carlossuarez46 21:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect would be confusing. They may have picked their name for the very purpose of being confusing. We'll need a careful disam if we keep this.


 * Weak keep they have the 3 sources. Daily Cal is probably usable in this context, they're a notable student newspaper, & that they bothered writing about this is in itself interesting, and then there's the other two. DGG 00:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Their own web site indicates you may be able to earn a degree in as little as six to eight weeks; this is a diploma mill. Some of the language from WP:HOAX may apply. A famous hoax may be covered, but a little-known one should not. There should be strong third-party evidence that many people have been taken in. ...a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years.EdJohnston 02:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting argument, but WP:Hoax does not apply. --JJay 00:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has been the subject of much controversy as shown by around 150 google news hits. JJay 12:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You do realize some of those refer to the legitimate school? Of the ghits that are relevant they are merely stories that are already in the article referring to the court battle. But more importantly that is not an argument to keep, see: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Arbustoo 15:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. News hits are always relevant to deletion discussions. They are a primary reason to keep articles. The school was in the news in 1995 when a recently hired college president was unmasked with fake credentials . It was again in the news when the school was used as an excuse on a visa application in a case involving potential ties to terrorism., . Of course, there is the extensive national coverage of the court case .  All that without digging any deeper than google news. Given that diploma mills are considered a valid topic at wikipedia, and that this particular mill has achieved notability, there is no reason to delete the article. --JJay 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Substance is relevant. Numbers of times words appear are not as they may refer to other subjects or times the AP article is ran in different newspapers. Expand the article and show notability. We aren't interested in ghits. Arbustoo 03:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also I would like you to comment on your current Requests for comment/JJay or your talk removals. Your interest in AFDs started by me (and you consistently voting keep) looks more like WP:POINT/WP:STALK than real interest in the subject. Arbustoo 03:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. As per usual, you want to comment about a lot of things, except the subject under discussion. --JJay 10:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As as usual you don't address points. Arbustoo 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And the relation of that comment to University of Berkley or this AFD is? None. JJay 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very weak assertion of notability, no reliable sources, and reads like a newspaper article. Charlie 20:55, 22 May 2007 (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.