Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (second nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Prodego talk 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I've been taking another look at the original rationales that defeated this list's first AfD in late 2005. Wikipedia's standards are always evolving, and this list's survival seems to have been the product of a different era in Wikipedia's history. An example of what was said in the article's defense: "Watching for links here turning blue is actually a useful way to monitor the creation of new articles on diploma mills, provided they are in the list to begin with; if the creator is particularly clumsy, he will also try to remove the name from the list." And this one: "Very interesting page."

Wikipedia articles are not dashboards for editors, and using "interesting" as a criterion for inclusion is more in line with Encyclopedia Dramatica's standards than with Wikipedia's.

There are a few major problems I have noticed with this article:

  1. It is not exhaustive and in all likelihood can never be, and a "List of some unaccredited institutions of higher education" will never be truly encyclopedic.
  2. As has been pointed out on the article's Talk page, this list seems to drift very close to being original research. This perception is occurring primarily because the list is original research, explicitly synthesizing new knowledge -- which disqualifies it from inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:OR, one of the three core content tenets.
  3. With the myriad jurisdictions around the world with their own standards for accreditation, creating this list necessitates taking one point of view, whether it be from the US state lists of unaccredited institutions, the British government listings or what have you. One jurisdiction or set of jurisdictions' standards will hve to be taken as canonical. This inherently grates againstWP:NPOV -- which makes it two of the three core content tenets this list runs afoul of. It also traps the list's maintainers in the strict, arbitrary logic they make up amongst themselves, and that kind of self-created othodoxy will regularly lead to problems, whether it be labeling the Esalen Institute as an unaccredited college, getting into the recent fracas over a religious school that's been dominating the Talk page, etc.
  4. Whether the editors involved want to admit it or not, they and we know that "unaccredited institution" is used primarily as a pejorative term in everyday parlance, and we are labeling all institutions swept up onto this list as such, the diploma mills that fake their accreditation and religious schools which publicly resist accreditation alike. This fact alone makes the list worse than useless to what I suppose was its original intended audience: people trying to figure out if they're being scammed by a rip-off school or by somebody wielding a dodgy credential. What other purpose would this list have, besides being "neat" and a good indicator of red links turning blue? --Dynaflow babble 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This list is a mess that can't be cleaned up for all of the reasons outlined by Dynaflow. --ElKevbo 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the list can be split into different lists to avoid tarring religious institutions with the same brush, but this list can be comprised of verified entries. John Vandenberg 08:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. and WP:NOT#DIR and also the fact that some of the institutions listed in the redirected article are currently actively seeking accreditation and some are institutions in jurisdictions that do not currently officially accredit the disciplines that those institutions offer (ie. Christian theology in Muslim-majority states or Syariah in non-Muslim majority states). To lump them in with institutions that are known diploma mills as is currently done is problematic. Due to the various guidelines and regulations governing accreditation in the various countries worldwide and also the fact that it is not impossible to set up a diploma mill overnight, this list can never be exhaustive and as it currently stands, cannot be deemed as encyclopaedic. The article Diploma mill and School accreditation already exists which provides ample information about this issue. If necessary, a non-exhaustive list of known and verified diploma mills can be included to these articles for reference. Bob K 09:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is one of the few lists that seems to have any redeeming value. It provides information, no not as a directory, but as a reference list for educational institutions that have a particular property. The sole problem i see with the list is that it cannot be complete..., but what list that describes institutions can be complete? none, because things change. As for the perjorative issue, it is not perjorative, it is merely factual, if some people read it as perjorative, it is their judgment that is misaligned and not the facts of the matter. People get ripped off all the time going to diploma mills, this list helps resolve that in an encyclopedic way. It's encyclopedic value is clear, and I've think I have seen lists of such institutions in educational encyclopedias or reference works. The notability of the list is well established, I don't think anyone can doubt that given the amount of citations and references it could use. I can see the merit of including a separation between diploma mill and not, that would be the sole justification for deletion that i see above, but I am afraid that is not a valid deletion reason, that is an improvement reason.--Buridan 10:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Buridan and Jayvdb. Anyone who has ever had to read a resume', or decide where to spend their tuition money, appreciates a list of schools to watch out for. I suggest adding some redirects from terms like "Diploma mills". Caution: One does need to be careful about adding to the list; this one cites sources from the press.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Of course such a list should exist. Charlatans deserve all the exposure the Internet can afford. But Wikipedia is not the place for it, and indeed, this is not a list of "schools to watch out for". — mholland (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: why isn't wikipedia the place for it? it is encyclopedic and refers to important knowledge about the world as we know it. --Buridan 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When someone is reading a resume' or deciding where to spend their tuition money they should/would/likely look it up in Wikipedia by the institution name. That will provide the information that they need. Bill Huffman 21:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
    1. This list does not have a definable set of contents. Neither "institution of higher learning" nor "accreditation" is adequately defined; it is therefore impossible to determine whether an institution is a potential member of the list or not. Inclusion criteria on the list itself include an unacceptable self reference to WP:RS.
    2. This list is inherently POV. It has been moved to its current location from such POV and sloppy titles as List of diploma mills and List of institutions of higher learning which may not be accepted by civil service or other employers. "Accreditation" is a term of art within the context of U.S. higher education, and not a neutral, verifiable quality.
    3. This list is inherently unencyclopedic. A majority of the list's members are non-notable.
For these reasons, and the reasons given by User:Dynaflow above, I would delete the list. — mholland (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The attempt to claim "unaccredited" is POV is bollocks. See List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning. John Vandenberg 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you citing another Wikipedia article (which happens to have been worked on by a lot of the major contributors to this list) as a source? --Dynaflow babble 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FFS: no, don't be ridiculous. I am using the article to quickly demonstrate that "unaccredited" is not POV; there are accrediting bodies, and they are authoritative sources. John Vandenberg 04:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that POV is not the key problem here. OR is the key problem. Wikipedia editors can not go searching through all of the relevant accreditation documents and lists to see if a particular institution is not listed in any of them. --ElKevbo 04:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concept of accreditation is international, but operates in different ways in different contexts. u.n. and oecd documents use the term accreditation in regards to education. It is not inherently POV, it is neutral, it is only if you make the claim that calling something unaccredited is not a statement of fact, which is or is not supportable with evidence. in this case, it is supportable with evidence, how is it then pov? if it is included in other reference works or encyclopedias, then it is encyclopedic. the first encyclopedia had lists that were far worse than this... things like 'tools you find in a blacksmith shop'. --Buridan 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way this list construes accreditation, it is an inherently POV term. If the test this list applies were as simple as "Does institution appear on Official Register X (Y/N) ?", I'd agree that the list would be neutral, verifiable and valid.
Unfortunately, the test currently goes a little like this: "Does the institution grant post-secondary degrees? ... Has the institution been labelled unaccredited? ... Do we trust the source that says this institution is unaccredited? ... If yes to all, then add institution to list". Quite apart from the unnecessary complexity of this test, it excludes from the list institutions which have not been accused by a third party of handing out non-accredited degrees (be they ever so unaccredited). So it winds up being a List of diploma mills by another name. This list is a refuge for POV, unencyclopedic content. — mholland (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What POV, unencyclopedic content hides here? John Vandenberg 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so cited and sourced articles will not work here? what if we applied that policy to other articles? the inclusion policy of cited materials seems central to wikipedia to me. --Buridan 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There should be an article on the institution or it shouldn't be in the list, IMHO. Putting it on this list when there's an existing article serves no real purpose that I see. Putting it on the list when there is no article is problematic. If there's good enough sources to put it on the list then I think an article should be created for it. Bill Huffman 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion - Instead of the list, an article should be created for each red linked school. Then all the school related articles would have a section regarding accreditation. Perhaps a table containing associations, affiliated schools, governing bodies and of course, refs. If people are researching an institution, they will find this important information on that open, NPOV page. If a list should continue to exist, it would do better by being sectioned and categorized. --travisthurston 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The list is useful for people who are curious about some potential underdog schools. --Feydakin 22:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep no list can be complete, so that's no objection, but I agree that an articles should be created for each red-linked school. The nom. himself says that it was implied at the first AfD that some of the pressure on this article might be from those who want to keep their favorite institutions from being listed. The qualification for listing are perfectly clear in most cases, and the documentation sufficient. DGG 03:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that, and that motivation does not appear to have played any role in the first AfD. What I said was that a rationale for keeping the article was that Wikipedia editors could watch the redlinks for articles on (presumably) diploma mills that had been speedied or AfD'ed to turn blue again, which would allow the editors to then pursue the redeletion or co-option of that article. While it seems like a good idea, that is not a reason for a page to exist in article space. If anything, such a page should be in project space, though it would run into problems there too.
The documentation is sufficient for the small number of entries left on the list because we stripped out all the other entries, comprising the bulk of the list, without sufficient sources. The list as it stands (and as it has been for a long, long time) is effectively an [[Arbitrary list of some institutions of post-secondary education whose diplomas may or may not be accepted in certain jurisdictions (see Talk page for which ones!) because they may or may not be accredited by the appropriate accrediting body, as defined in another Wikipedia article, for said jurisdictions]]. A list like that cannot be encyclopedic, no matter how interesting or useful to the corps of editors who watch school articles it may be. --Dynaflow babble 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Dynaflow. Given our prohibition against original research, this list is doomed to be pathetically incomplete. On that merit alone it's a disservice to readers looking for this information. Add in the immense difficulty of creating and maintaining a realistic and generalizable criteria and that seems to clearly point to deletion.
I wish we could do this list justice - I really do. My background and education are in higher education and I understand how important it is for students, parents, and others to make accurate judgments about the quality and qualifications of institutions and the degrees they purport to award. But I think that many people underestimate the complexity of higher education; I assume this underestimation and confusion is heightened by the widespread incidence of college education among Wikipedia editors who wrongly believe their isolated experiences can be generalized. If we were to limit this list to one jurisdiction (state, country, etc.) then we might have a hope of making it worthwhile. But a generalized, one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't work. It's an admirable and understandable goal but it's completely unrealistic and doomed to be very incomplete and fundamentally flawed. --ElKevbo 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and the need for constant maintenance. Is it also so vastly incomplete as to be of any questionable utility.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 04:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Writing and editing Wikipedia articles about unaccredited institutions, unrecognized accreditation agencies, etc., is a frustrating enterprise. Many of the articles that have been written about individual institutions have been deleted based on assertions of lack of notability, often with attributes such as "diploma mill", "bible college," and "unaccredited" cited as evidence of lack of notability and the existence of this list cited as a reason why the institution-specific article is unnecessary. For some examples, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Berkley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northcentral University (although the decision was "Keep," the article was deleted about 10 days later), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colton University, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitefield College and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buxton University. Recently, this list, which included many more entries than it has now, was trimmed to remove about 300 institutions that were not annotated with one or more references documenting the school's lack of accreditation. Many of these removed institutions had once had articles that contained source citations, but those citations were not added to the list when the articles were deleted. Many other institutions that were removed from the list have well-sourced articles that clearly document the lack of accreditation (in many cases, even the institution freely states that it is not accredited), but these institutions were removed from the list because someone decided that this particular list requires an individual reference citation for every item on the list (even if the linked article has 15 relevant citations). Now that the "list" article has been thoroughly eviscerated, there is a hue and cry for the list to be deleted, in part due to its woefully incomplete nature. Can you hear me banging my head against the computer screen? --orlady 05:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I still have a CRT rather than a flat panel monitor, all that head banging would destroy a flat panel monitor. Most unaccredited institutions are understandably very secretive about their particulars. This means that articles on them are frequently going to be stubs. As long as there's a WP:RS for the fact that they are unaccredited then they should have an article, IMHO, even if it is just a perpetual stub. Of course, it also requires responsible editors to watch list these articles because the "alumni" (and sometimes owners I suspect) like to remove any derogatory information like the unaccredited status. So it takes a special breed of editor that can handle "Writing and editing Wikipedia articles about unaccredited institutions, unrecognized accreditation agencies, etc., is a frustrating enterprise." A breed of editor that owns a CRT rather than flat panel monitor and has a thick skull. :-) Regards, Bill Huffman 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom and WP:NOT#DIR 172.190.202.149 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While the article had been abused in the past as part of an effort to deprecate unaccredited institutions, I think that we are on our way to an objective definition that can be met with appropriate sources for any institution listed, showing that it is 1) a degree-granting institution AND 2) it is not accredited. As long as tehse criteria are strictly observed, there is no reason that the article can't usefully remain on Wikipedia. Alansohn 19:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepI believe it is important to have this page as fraud is increasingly common with people using online methods to establish educational institutions without the proper accreditation.--Bud 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to add "not a college guide" to the list? I thought it was self-evident but I guess I'm wrong. --ElKevbo 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a guide-for-schools-to-avoid. The argument that academic fraud is increasingly common should make the delete argument even stronger not weaker. Just because a diploma mill doesn't show up on the list it can't mean that it is a good school. These academic fraudsters can create a new diploma mill in less than a day. There's no way that this list can ever be anywhere near complete. I argue that the way to fight academic fraud is let people read the articles about accreditation and diploma mills. This article is misleading in my opinion because it implies that the school might be good if it doesn't show up on this misleading list. Regards, Bill Huffman 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unaccredited by whom? for what? and where's the School of Hard Knocks, unless somebody has accredited it. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Article is too confusing, downright misleading. It's relatively small number of schools tarnishes by association the name of any good institutions unlucky enough to be on the list, and on the flipside gives the bad schools NOT on the list a cover, kind of validation by omission. I agree the whole thing should be scrapped and start from scratch as BobK said above. And as another editor said, leave religious schools off this time. A whole 'nother kettle of worms. --KatiaRoma 03:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The vast majority of religious schools are accredited. The exemption in some jurisdiction applies to government licensing to operate a school, which is not the same thing as accreditation. The state of Texas has attempted to explain the distinction (as well as other aspects of the general issue) in this FAQ. Religious schools that choose not to seek accreditation are equally as "unaccredited" as any other unaccredited school; furthermore, unfortunately, some diploma mill scams claim to be religion-based and use their status to try to avoid scrutiny.--orlady 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. List seems well-sourced (40+ refs). Arguments that the list "isn't complete" ring hollow given orlady's above comments: the list is as complete as verifiable sources allow at this point. With this criterion, OR is eliminated (if you have a reliable source, then its not OR). -- MarcoTolo 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research cites reliable sources all the time. Just look at any journal article. What makes this original research is the way in which the cited sources are being used to synthesize something new. Again, an arbitrary sampling of some institutions of post-secondary education which dedicated editors' tireless research indicates may not be accredited in certain jurisdictions is a noble undertaking, but it is original research and thus not appropriate to Wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 04:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was unclear—I was using "original research" in the Wikipedia sense of "a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." As a referenced list, this entry simply provides an index-of-sorts: I'm unclear as to how "the cited sources are being used to synthesize something new". If you mean "new" as in "this exact list hasn't been published by a reliable source", I suppose that's true.... -- MarcoTolo 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With this kind of reasoning, Dynaflow, you actually should be very doubtful about the entire wikipedia project. As far as I see, wikipedia aims at and has succeeded in collecting a substantial amount of already established knowledge, in interrelated and easy to grasp manners. If you really meant what you write as a general principe, you could start by critisising the existence of cross references, categories, and navigation boxes in wikipedia. Of course all of this in an abstract sense synthesises something new, namely, an easy and collected access and overview of disparate facts. Wikipedia lists in general are not different from categories or navigation boxes in this respect. JoergenB 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between putting together an encyclopedic summary from secondary sources (with contextual references to primary sources) and just plowing almost exclusively through primary sources to synthesize a new piece of research. While the latter approach is inestimably valuable to the advancement of knowledge, its direct results are not appropriate to a tertiary source such as an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this list pretty much requires its compilers to take that latter approach, which dooms it as an encyclopedia article. Almost every element on the list (after the scores of unreferenced entries were removed) is based first and foremost on editorial judgement-calls on primary sources. --Dynaflow babble 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the first twenty references, at least ten are secondary sources: here, here, here, here, and here. Wait, there's also this one, and this other one, as well as another one here, here, and here. The majority of the other references in this sample are mostly state departments of education (DOEs)—I suppose these fall into the "primary sources" category. I checked WP:NOR: in all the examples I checked, the references were using these DOEs to establish that a given institution on the list was so classified:no "interpretation" was involved. -- MarcoTolo 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those refs to state departments of education are not primary sources. Those lists are secondary, or even tertiary, sources -- they are compilations of information that state officials gleaned from various primary and secondary sources. The closest we get to primary sources in articles like this one are (1) the findings in court documents such as those at http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/ocp/udgi/lawsuits/ and (2) materials published by the institutions themselves (or their founders), indicating that they are not accredited (for example, http://www.vision.edu/institutions/viu/authorization.asp).--orlady 00:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense. I was trying to see in what model the various DOEs might be considered primaries—thinking of them as 2° or 3° fits the situation much better. Thanks. -- MarcoTolo 00:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. Arbitrary sampling and OR say enough. 172.133.25.97 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC) EricG.[reply]
  • Keep (with some doubts). There is a reasonable alternative, namely, to list links to the various existing lists (governemental, by US states et cetera, and CHEAn) of institutions from which degrees are not to be accepted at applications for positions. Those lists are probably updated faster and more accurately than our lists. However, otherwise the wiki project tries to avoid being a collection of links. Moreover, some of the arguments supra for deletion actually tend to underline the necessity of such lists (whether ours or link collections). There seems to be a relativist kind of criticism against lists based on official agencies reactions to the threats posed by the bogus degree sellings. It does remind me of our own bogus degree affair a short while ago. If there really are a number of wikipedians who think that referring to lack of legal licensing or even direct official listings on lists such as this one from Michigan (based on CHEA information) as "POV", or that institutes which abuse rhe religious exemption from accreditaition for issuing non-licenced degrees in non-religious subjects should not be listed with other unaccredited institutions, then such lists may be necessary also for our own sake (not just as a warning to anyone thinking of applying for a civil service position in Michigan).
There is nothing POV in recognising that some "degrees" are bogus and others clearly valid; nor in presenting lists based on objective criteria (like the lack of accreditation). Nor is it OR. It would be POV if the article wrote someting like the following:"These institutes are blacklisted by US governmental or state agencies, and hence are proved to be criminal". We must present the grounds for listings carefully, and then let people draw their own conclusions. Similarly, institutes invoking the religious exemption should be marked doing so. JoergenB 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That recommendation is not workable. Many "distance learning" diploma mills have (or claim to have) a physical location in a country where they do not solicit or enroll students. Often these are small countries such as Dominica or Turks and Caicos, while solicitations target students in North America. In other cases, the school's official location is in the United States, but it targets students in Asia and the Middle East. Furthermore, many of these institutions move around frequently, or else have no identifiable physical location. For some examples, see Saint Regis University (it and its affiliated institutions had or claimed to have locations in Liberia, India, the principality of Seborga, and the U.S. state of Washington), Rushmore University (apparent locations in two U.S. states and the Cayman Islands; Google their name and you will find personal pages by enrolled students living all over the world), and Bronte International University (which also discusses Trinity College and University, apparently another name for the same institution; locations or alleged locations include several U.S. states, Spain, and the British Virgin Islands). --orlady 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is sourced and neutral. Accreditation is not a trivial aspect of a school. Arguably it is the single most important qualification a school has. A list is better than a category for two reasons: categories are navigation tools and I don't see why anyone would want to navigate among the entries; and clists can be annotated and sourced more easily than categories. The list is incomplete because it is (or should be) limited to notable schools, i.e. those with articles. Many lists have the same criteria, implicitly or explicitly, or notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problems raised by the nom should be addressed by the editors of that page, but are not sufficient for deleting the list. These kinds of lists are common and are maintained by many institutions. The page collects a lot of useful sources that would be needed in case the list is restructured so as to solve the issues. nadav (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highly Emphatic Keep as per DGG 03:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC). Although it has been stated already, the list might not be entirely encyclopedic but the nature of this list is such that you can never list everyone. The beauty of wikipedia is that it is an evolving entity, constantly able to be modified and updated with events. As such the list is important, notable, and valuable. It is very messy though. I suggest a major restyling so it is not so abominably ugly... I'll freely admit that merely based on its appearance I wanted to delete it, but having looked at the article and the arguments for and against I vote keep it. Cazza411 11:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But as per Bill Huffman 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC) , I think it is important that this page comes with a caveat emptor - a strong note that this is an INCOMPLETE list. Additionally, a useful reference to checking the accreditation status of someone NOT on the list, even if just a weblink to a page of listed accreditors.Cazza411 11:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - highly useful resource to prevent people from throwing their money away on useless diplomas. bd2412 T 19:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - some people here have noted that the encyclopaedic justification is providing information about fake or plain non-accreited institutions. However, as others pointed out, sometimes that can be a hard decision, as unaccredited does not automatically mean fake, nor does unaccredited according to one standard/body mean unaccredited in general. People are better off looking at the list of accreditition bodies they trust (and about which we have/can have articles linked to from accredition articles). So delete this as per the flaws pointed out. MadMaxDog 06:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely - the article helped me to avoid studying at an unaccredited "university" and saved my money. thank Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.32.9 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete For reasons given in the original post. Mostly, original research has no place here. I think if someone really needs to know of such a list, a link to lists of such institutions can be posted in the accredition article. Piercetp 02:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, sorry to spoil your party, but the article contents are not based on original research. --orlady 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning_(second_nomination)&oldid=1136472858"