Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM)

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JJay (talk | contribs) at 01:14, 2 October 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:14, 2 October 2006 by JJay (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

International School of Management (ISM)

There are many schools called "International School of Management", which have no connection to this one (for example this German school called International School of Management). This one, however, is NOT accredited. Its claims "accreditation" from World Association of Universities and Colleges, which IS NOT recognized by ANY government as legitimate. In fact it will accredit for around a $100 USD. Thus, without this being accredited or a public school it must meet WP:CORP and have WP:RS. Arbusto 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Durova 04:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'm sure their diplomas look Mahvelous! - Richfife 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The school figures prominently on our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, something the nom knows full well. Our list guidelines are fairly clear. They state: "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Misplaced Pages article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." . It makes very little sense to do lists of institutions - accredited or not - but then seek to delete articles on the underlying components of the lists. Furthermore, the best way to avoid the confusion indicated by this nom is to have an article on the school. Citing WP:Corp is also as stretch, given that most if not all the institutions on List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning would fail wp:Corp. An institution does not get a free ride to be on a list if it does not qualify for an article. --JJay 14:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Note the use of the word "ideally" in the sentence you quoted. Perhaps, once this is deleted it should be removed from the List of diploma mills too. 2) Feel free to nominate unaccredited institutions that fail notability. Just because there may be unnotable "unaccredited schools" (I say may because you failed to give examples) that is no reason to give every questionable instituion an ad space on wikipedia. Arbusto 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not in the business of making lists of non-notable subjects. Hence, logically we should start by deleting the unnacredited lists. Especially as the individual components are not sourced and it is difficult to know what school the list refers to, as you explicitly mentioned in your nom. Feel free to nominate List of diploma mills and its brethren for deletion and I'll happily vote delete. --JJay 01:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn diploma mill. Eusebeus 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete. To respond to JJay; the arbitrary inclusion of an institution on a list is not an argument for keeping an article about it, since anyone can write an article about a non-notable institution, add the institution to the list, and then argue to keep the article based on it being on the list. That doesn't make a lot of sense, and it seems to me that the article should be judged on the encyclopedic merit of the institution itself, which appears to me to be an unremarkable degree mill. --MCB 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

See the list guidelines. We have entire lists of these types of institutions, "unremarkable diploma mills" in your words... They are either worthwhile subjects for listing and, as per the guidelines, articles, or they are not. In that case we should not be wasting our time doing lists of diploma mills- almost all of which are obscure, non -notable, non entities. They all fail wp:corp--JJay 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories: