- 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. Per WP:SNOW, and nominator has also withdrawn. postdlf ( talk) 16:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
List of unaccredited institutions of higher education
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of unaccredited institutions of higher education ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The problems with this article are: 1.The list is listing something that may change, and when it does so the existance of an entry here sometimes becomes instantly and unfairly problematic(due to the nature of what Wikipedia has become). Similarly to WP:BLP the inclusion in the list will be seen as an indicator of a possible lack of trustfulness, and when it isn't true it could cause significant harm. The maintenance needed to make this list suitably accurate is excessive. 2. WP:NOTDIRECTORY states that Wikipedia articles should not be "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". This is a list of loosely associated topics. The reasons for not getting an accreditation can be many - the list itself states that. It could be because the institution cannot get accredited because it is privatly run and private institutions do not get accredited in principle, or only when established with the consent of the state. It could be because the institution is refused accreditation because its topics are generally obscure(and there is no one who could serve as a reliable accreditator). It could be because the institution is unreliable. It could be because the institution is new and has to prove itself first before getting accreditation. Those should not all be put together in a single list.
A List of suspected diploma mills would likewise have the problem of high maintenance and should not be pursued instead.
The previous deletion discussions were under a different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (second nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Lurking shadow ( talk) 07:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and essentially a list defined by a non-attribute. I see the previous AfDs were from more than a decade ago, so maybe consenus can change? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I note the nominator has not got a userpage- so I am suspicious that one of his first action on WP should be an erudite AFD. This is more than a list, items have useful entries such as 'not to be confused with UofXXX- a degree issuing university with a similar name'. ClemRutter ( talk) 09:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. I find the nomination unconvincing. The fact that a Wikipedia page requires maintence to keep it up to date is nothing unusual. One of greatest features of Wikipedia is that it can be, and regularly is, updated in real time. As far as I can tell, the nominator has not even made an attempt to solicit assistance in maintaining the list - the bare minimum that I would expect someone to try before claiming that it can't be maintained and must therefore be deleted. Also, I don't agree that this list contains "loosely associated topics". Accreditation is a fundamental, often defining, aspect of educational institutions and educational systems. Grouping unaccredited institutions of higher education into a single list therefore makes complete sense regardless of why they aren't accredited. If you're concerned about the scope of the list or its potentially ill-defined criteria for inclusion, that's something to address on the article's talk page first. Deletion on those grounds should only be considered if no reasonable criteria can be established. Peacock ( talk) 12:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am not interested in looking for sources that indicate a change every month for every single entry in this page(except historical entries). I also might simply forget that. However, the damage done outside of Wikipedia was an important qualifier. "Useful list" is bad, not good - people will use this and if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsly listed institutions. Similarly, this list is, and will always be, very incomplete. If an organisation is not listed here then it does not mean that it's accredited. Most of them - especially the fraudulent diploma mills - will not even get included because they cannot be reliably sourced. One part of the defining text is this - "Institutions that appear on this list are those that have granted post-secondary academic degrees or advertised the granting of such degrees, but which are listed as unaccredited by a reliable source" - which is actually at odds with the name of the list - it may also include institutions that are not percieved as accredited in one single country... the name of the list would suggest that only institutions without any accreditation should be included.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 14:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Can you provide an example of significant harm done to an organization falsely included on the list, or are you just speculating?
Peacock (
talk) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not really any of this. If enough people use that list on an organization that is falsly listed and that organization loses these people because of this... that's harmful. And as people go to Wikipedia regularly to check things(even if they shouldn't take things at face value, most do)... you might call it speculation, but I call it a high risk.
- Can you provide an example of significant harm done to an organization falsely included on the list, or are you just speculating?
Peacock (
talk) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am not interested in looking for sources that indicate a change every month for every single entry in this page(except historical entries). I also might simply forget that. However, the damage done outside of Wikipedia was an important qualifier. "Useful list" is bad, not good - people will use this and if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsly listed institutions. Similarly, this list is, and will always be, very incomplete. If an organisation is not listed here then it does not mean that it's accredited. Most of them - especially the fraudulent diploma mills - will not even get included because they cannot be reliably sourced. One part of the defining text is this - "Institutions that appear on this list are those that have granted post-secondary academic degrees or advertised the granting of such degrees, but which are listed as unaccredited by a reliable source" - which is actually at odds with the name of the list - it may also include institutions that are not percieved as accredited in one single country... the name of the list would suggest that only institutions without any accreditation should be included.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 14:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I do edit the page occasionally. I have not found the maintenance to be excessive. jfeise ( talk) 13:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. A well sourced compendium. I note that the proposer has a partial ban. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC).
- Keep as this is a useful list. Educational institutions are usually accredited by the education board of a country and the lack of an accreditation is something which is out of the ordinary. I do not buy the argument that "people will use this and if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsely listed institutions". On the contrary, imagine the "silent but significant harm that can be caused to students who do not have access to a list of unaccredited institutions". Lists are updated from time to time and if reliable sources can be found, we can update this. Any updates can be discussed on the talk.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 05:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- "silent but significant harm that can be caused to students who do not have access to a list of unaccredited institutions" - No. The students can find out if an institution is reliably accredited without accessing Wikipedia - and should do so(if they don't then it's their fault. Not the fault of Wikipedia.).
Lurking shadow (
talk) 16:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well in that case your original argument ("if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsely listed institutions") is moot. People can find out if information is outdated or incorrect, without accessing Wikipedia. If they don't, then it is their fault, not the fault of Wikipedia. So all in all, let's keep this list.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 19:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- We might not like it(and at the same time like it), but people rely on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is important. If someone inserts libel about a big company and it isn't timely removed people will start to believe these assertions. If we have them listed here then most easily assessed sources may copy this information even when it goes untrue. This will especially happen with this list form, because it often gives no additional info on the subjects - or highly incomplete information.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I still don't get your argument. If people rely on Wikipedia and it is important, then I guess it is a strong argument to have a list of unaccredited institutions. About untrue information, the same can be said for all articles about people. Should we delete all articles about people simply because someone might add untrue information? We tend to keep then and ensure false information is not added. We do not delete them. The same can be applied here.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 20:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, we (should) ensure false info isn't added. The bigger problem is when information becomes outdated - something that is accentuated in this list, obviously, because it deals with information that will sometimes become outdated, and then it should edited out immediately. Keeping things not outdated is probably also a problem for articles about people but probably not in the same magnitude.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 21:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am glad you agree that we should not delete this article, but instead maintain it. Problems with outdated information can be handled accordingly with policies related to editing.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 07:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you have the motivation to check sources offline and online for each entry(save for historical entries that never reached accreditation) every month - or if you can find someone who has(I certainly don't) - then we can keep this. Sure.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 10:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nowhere in our rules does it say an article must be deleted if sources aren't checked at least monthly. This article should be deleted if it fails our notability requirements. This article passes notability requirements.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well,no, Notability isn't everything, but I think you gave me an idea on how to sort this out, so - let's keep this for now. Lurking shadow ( talk) 19:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nowhere in our rules does it say an article must be deleted if sources aren't checked at least monthly. This article should be deleted if it fails our notability requirements. This article passes notability requirements.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you have the motivation to check sources offline and online for each entry(save for historical entries that never reached accreditation) every month - or if you can find someone who has(I certainly don't) - then we can keep this. Sure.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 10:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am glad you agree that we should not delete this article, but instead maintain it. Problems with outdated information can be handled accordingly with policies related to editing.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 07:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, we (should) ensure false info isn't added. The bigger problem is when information becomes outdated - something that is accentuated in this list, obviously, because it deals with information that will sometimes become outdated, and then it should edited out immediately. Keeping things not outdated is probably also a problem for articles about people but probably not in the same magnitude.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 21:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I still don't get your argument. If people rely on Wikipedia and it is important, then I guess it is a strong argument to have a list of unaccredited institutions. About untrue information, the same can be said for all articles about people. Should we delete all articles about people simply because someone might add untrue information? We tend to keep then and ensure false information is not added. We do not delete them. The same can be applied here.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 20:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- We might not like it(and at the same time like it), but people rely on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is important. If someone inserts libel about a big company and it isn't timely removed people will start to believe these assertions. If we have them listed here then most easily assessed sources may copy this information even when it goes untrue. This will especially happen with this list form, because it often gives no additional info on the subjects - or highly incomplete information.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well in that case your original argument ("if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsely listed institutions") is moot. People can find out if information is outdated or incorrect, without accessing Wikipedia. If they don't, then it is their fault, not the fault of Wikipedia. So all in all, let's keep this list.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 19:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- "silent but significant harm that can be caused to students who do not have access to a list of unaccredited institutions" - No. The students can find out if an institution is reliably accredited without accessing Wikipedia - and should do so(if they don't then it's their fault. Not the fault of Wikipedia.).
Lurking shadow (
talk) 16:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A well-sourced list which clearly passes the guidelines set out at WP:NLIST. I don't understand the nom's rationale. SportingFlyer T· C 20:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:49, 16 February 2019 (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.
- 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. Per WP:SNOW, and nominator has also withdrawn. postdlf ( talk) 16:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
List of unaccredited institutions of higher education
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of unaccredited institutions of higher education ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The problems with this article are: 1.The list is listing something that may change, and when it does so the existance of an entry here sometimes becomes instantly and unfairly problematic(due to the nature of what Wikipedia has become). Similarly to WP:BLP the inclusion in the list will be seen as an indicator of a possible lack of trustfulness, and when it isn't true it could cause significant harm. The maintenance needed to make this list suitably accurate is excessive. 2. WP:NOTDIRECTORY states that Wikipedia articles should not be "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". This is a list of loosely associated topics. The reasons for not getting an accreditation can be many - the list itself states that. It could be because the institution cannot get accredited because it is privatly run and private institutions do not get accredited in principle, or only when established with the consent of the state. It could be because the institution is refused accreditation because its topics are generally obscure(and there is no one who could serve as a reliable accreditator). It could be because the institution is unreliable. It could be because the institution is new and has to prove itself first before getting accreditation. Those should not all be put together in a single list.
A List of suspected diploma mills would likewise have the problem of high maintenance and should not be pursued instead.
The previous deletion discussions were under a different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (second nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Lurking shadow ( talk) 07:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and essentially a list defined by a non-attribute. I see the previous AfDs were from more than a decade ago, so maybe consenus can change? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I note the nominator has not got a userpage- so I am suspicious that one of his first action on WP should be an erudite AFD. This is more than a list, items have useful entries such as 'not to be confused with UofXXX- a degree issuing university with a similar name'. ClemRutter ( talk) 09:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. I find the nomination unconvincing. The fact that a Wikipedia page requires maintence to keep it up to date is nothing unusual. One of greatest features of Wikipedia is that it can be, and regularly is, updated in real time. As far as I can tell, the nominator has not even made an attempt to solicit assistance in maintaining the list - the bare minimum that I would expect someone to try before claiming that it can't be maintained and must therefore be deleted. Also, I don't agree that this list contains "loosely associated topics". Accreditation is a fundamental, often defining, aspect of educational institutions and educational systems. Grouping unaccredited institutions of higher education into a single list therefore makes complete sense regardless of why they aren't accredited. If you're concerned about the scope of the list or its potentially ill-defined criteria for inclusion, that's something to address on the article's talk page first. Deletion on those grounds should only be considered if no reasonable criteria can be established. Peacock ( talk) 12:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am not interested in looking for sources that indicate a change every month for every single entry in this page(except historical entries). I also might simply forget that. However, the damage done outside of Wikipedia was an important qualifier. "Useful list" is bad, not good - people will use this and if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsly listed institutions. Similarly, this list is, and will always be, very incomplete. If an organisation is not listed here then it does not mean that it's accredited. Most of them - especially the fraudulent diploma mills - will not even get included because they cannot be reliably sourced. One part of the defining text is this - "Institutions that appear on this list are those that have granted post-secondary academic degrees or advertised the granting of such degrees, but which are listed as unaccredited by a reliable source" - which is actually at odds with the name of the list - it may also include institutions that are not percieved as accredited in one single country... the name of the list would suggest that only institutions without any accreditation should be included.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 14:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Can you provide an example of significant harm done to an organization falsely included on the list, or are you just speculating?
Peacock (
talk) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not really any of this. If enough people use that list on an organization that is falsly listed and that organization loses these people because of this... that's harmful. And as people go to Wikipedia regularly to check things(even if they shouldn't take things at face value, most do)... you might call it speculation, but I call it a high risk.
- Can you provide an example of significant harm done to an organization falsely included on the list, or are you just speculating?
Peacock (
talk) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am not interested in looking for sources that indicate a change every month for every single entry in this page(except historical entries). I also might simply forget that. However, the damage done outside of Wikipedia was an important qualifier. "Useful list" is bad, not good - people will use this and if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsly listed institutions. Similarly, this list is, and will always be, very incomplete. If an organisation is not listed here then it does not mean that it's accredited. Most of them - especially the fraudulent diploma mills - will not even get included because they cannot be reliably sourced. One part of the defining text is this - "Institutions that appear on this list are those that have granted post-secondary academic degrees or advertised the granting of such degrees, but which are listed as unaccredited by a reliable source" - which is actually at odds with the name of the list - it may also include institutions that are not percieved as accredited in one single country... the name of the list would suggest that only institutions without any accreditation should be included.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 14:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I do edit the page occasionally. I have not found the maintenance to be excessive. jfeise ( talk) 13:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. A well sourced compendium. I note that the proposer has a partial ban. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC).
- Keep as this is a useful list. Educational institutions are usually accredited by the education board of a country and the lack of an accreditation is something which is out of the ordinary. I do not buy the argument that "people will use this and if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsely listed institutions". On the contrary, imagine the "silent but significant harm that can be caused to students who do not have access to a list of unaccredited institutions". Lists are updated from time to time and if reliable sources can be found, we can update this. Any updates can be discussed on the talk.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 05:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- "silent but significant harm that can be caused to students who do not have access to a list of unaccredited institutions" - No. The students can find out if an institution is reliably accredited without accessing Wikipedia - and should do so(if they don't then it's their fault. Not the fault of Wikipedia.).
Lurking shadow (
talk) 16:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well in that case your original argument ("if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsely listed institutions") is moot. People can find out if information is outdated or incorrect, without accessing Wikipedia. If they don't, then it is their fault, not the fault of Wikipedia. So all in all, let's keep this list.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 19:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- We might not like it(and at the same time like it), but people rely on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is important. If someone inserts libel about a big company and it isn't timely removed people will start to believe these assertions. If we have them listed here then most easily assessed sources may copy this information even when it goes untrue. This will especially happen with this list form, because it often gives no additional info on the subjects - or highly incomplete information.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I still don't get your argument. If people rely on Wikipedia and it is important, then I guess it is a strong argument to have a list of unaccredited institutions. About untrue information, the same can be said for all articles about people. Should we delete all articles about people simply because someone might add untrue information? We tend to keep then and ensure false information is not added. We do not delete them. The same can be applied here.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 20:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, we (should) ensure false info isn't added. The bigger problem is when information becomes outdated - something that is accentuated in this list, obviously, because it deals with information that will sometimes become outdated, and then it should edited out immediately. Keeping things not outdated is probably also a problem for articles about people but probably not in the same magnitude.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 21:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am glad you agree that we should not delete this article, but instead maintain it. Problems with outdated information can be handled accordingly with policies related to editing.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 07:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you have the motivation to check sources offline and online for each entry(save for historical entries that never reached accreditation) every month - or if you can find someone who has(I certainly don't) - then we can keep this. Sure.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 10:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nowhere in our rules does it say an article must be deleted if sources aren't checked at least monthly. This article should be deleted if it fails our notability requirements. This article passes notability requirements.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well,no, Notability isn't everything, but I think you gave me an idea on how to sort this out, so - let's keep this for now. Lurking shadow ( talk) 19:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nowhere in our rules does it say an article must be deleted if sources aren't checked at least monthly. This article should be deleted if it fails our notability requirements. This article passes notability requirements.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you have the motivation to check sources offline and online for each entry(save for historical entries that never reached accreditation) every month - or if you can find someone who has(I certainly don't) - then we can keep this. Sure.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 10:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am glad you agree that we should not delete this article, but instead maintain it. Problems with outdated information can be handled accordingly with policies related to editing.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 07:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, we (should) ensure false info isn't added. The bigger problem is when information becomes outdated - something that is accentuated in this list, obviously, because it deals with information that will sometimes become outdated, and then it should edited out immediately. Keeping things not outdated is probably also a problem for articles about people but probably not in the same magnitude.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 21:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I still don't get your argument. If people rely on Wikipedia and it is important, then I guess it is a strong argument to have a list of unaccredited institutions. About untrue information, the same can be said for all articles about people. Should we delete all articles about people simply because someone might add untrue information? We tend to keep then and ensure false information is not added. We do not delete them. The same can be applied here.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 20:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- We might not like it(and at the same time like it), but people rely on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is important. If someone inserts libel about a big company and it isn't timely removed people will start to believe these assertions. If we have them listed here then most easily assessed sources may copy this information even when it goes untrue. This will especially happen with this list form, because it often gives no additional info on the subjects - or highly incomplete information.
Lurking shadow (
talk) 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well in that case your original argument ("if the information is outdated it will inflict silent but significant harm upon the falsely listed institutions") is moot. People can find out if information is outdated or incorrect, without accessing Wikipedia. If they don't, then it is their fault, not the fault of Wikipedia. So all in all, let's keep this list.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 19:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- "silent but significant harm that can be caused to students who do not have access to a list of unaccredited institutions" - No. The students can find out if an institution is reliably accredited without accessing Wikipedia - and should do so(if they don't then it's their fault. Not the fault of Wikipedia.).
Lurking shadow (
talk) 16:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A well-sourced list which clearly passes the guidelines set out at WP:NLIST. I don't understand the nom's rationale. SportingFlyer T· C 20:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:49, 16 February 2019 (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.