Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Academy of Higher Education

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 No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Academy of Higher Education

Unnotable accreditation mill. Started by a user who has been vandalizing Concordia College and University (a degree mill) in trying to give this place the look of a legitimate school. (This article is listed as that diploma mill's accreditor[1]).

It is not an legitimate accreditor, which means its "accreditation" is worthless. (And see List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning.) It is listed at Credential Watch as nonrecognized. A user has tried to say it is legitimate with a link that fails to prove otherwise.[2] FGT2 04:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I stated previously when I removed the PROD notice from this article, expanded the article, and tried to revise it in a manner that presents a relatively balanced view of the topic, I think the real reason for the proposed deletion is the allegation that the article topic is a fraudulent organization. This is one of the types of "reasons" discussed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Fraudulent organizations can be notable (for example, see Mafia). If a notable organization is alleged to be fraudulent, it seems to me that Wikipedia should make the information available to people, rather than hiding it by deleting the article. I believe the topic is notable, as indicated by the fact that prominent Diploma mills cite NAHE to support their claims of credibility and several "quackwatch"-type organizations include it in their lists of known unrecognized accreditation agencies.--orlady 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained or given reason why it is notable, see: WP:CORP. Is there enough details to write an article? FGT2 04:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the notion that Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". That is not the same as "is easy to find extensive information about." Factors that indicate this organization is "attracting notice" include the diploma mills that use it to establish credibility for themselves (examples: International University of Fundamental Studies, Concordia College and University, American University of London, and Bircham International University), news stories about fraud incidents involving this outfit (for example, Cheyenne police chief defends distance-learning degree), and its appearance on fraud-alert lists such as http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CollegeGuide/NonAccredited.asp . --orlady 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three unaccredited places that give degrees in weeks (as opposed to years) make this notable how? onlineeducationfacts.com promoting Concordia College and University is notable how? Read WP:CORP: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both: 1) independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and 2) reliable."FGT2 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the above, but there isn't any results on google for this, the only result is a UK site and totally contradicts the article. Can you give any links to prove this organization existence? Rysin3 05:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google for "National Academy of Higher Education" (including the quotation marks) you will definitely get results (in addition to results for the similarly-named legitimate national organization in Pakistan).--orlady 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But where did you get this information? Really some proof is needed, i have looked on Google as well as other search engines but i find nothing to match what you wrote. I agree what you said about allowing more articles, but this one seems nonsense to me. Rysin3 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the fact the article has been edited to show that it is an un-accredited facilty, with little else of note, maybe worth a re-direct straight to List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning. ^{Khukri -} 09:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure it's discussed a lot, and often in reliable sources, but only in the manner of a directory entry listing it as unrecognized. I can't find a source which states outright that it's an accreditation mill, but I can find sources that state several of its accredited schools are degree mills. Smerge and redirect to the list of unrecognized accrediting agencies may be the best result. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vandalism is not a reason to delete an article. Fix up the POV problems instead. Selket ^Talk 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have multiple, non-trival mentions, and therefore should be deleted. This is a WEBPAGE tied to diploma mills. Can you verify this is a real group or anything it claims to be? 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was posted by FGT2

Keep per above. If we are going to do lists of red links, i.e. List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, we should do articles on the underlying institutions. --JJay 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether it's a real organisation or an accreditation mill doesn't matter in this debate: it's got the references to support the notability claim, so the decision is straightforward. WMMartin 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one has proved it is notable. The only thing cited is it belongs on a list of accreditation mills. Read WP:CORP: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both: 1) independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and 2) reliable." The newspaper in the article does not mention this subject, it mentions a diploma mill. FGT2 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a fraudulent business isn't reason for deletion, but being a probably dishonest attempt to pose as a notable fraudulent business is good reason, especially as the article exists in good part to promote another article. Truly notable fake accreditation agencies get many more media references than this one has. DGG 05:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while vandalism is not a good deletion argument, lack of sourcing is. The three sources cited in the article are a "name drop" and therefore trivial. No indication this subject is notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I have (just now) created redirect pages, pointing to National Academy of Higher Education, for both Association of Distance Learning Programs and Association for Distance Learning, both of which were separately listed on List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, but appear to be components of NAHE. Since ADLP is the accrediting unit of NAHE, more diploma mills claim its accreditation than claim NAHE accreditation.--orlady 17:43, 18 February 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.