Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canterbury University of the Seychelles

Canterbury University of the Seychelles

Canterbury University of the Seychelles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Reads a bit spammy. Is it notable? -- RHaworth 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Reads as an advert and is very possibly phrased so as to mislead. See, for instance, [1], which lists Canterbury University under "list of unaccredited degree suppliers is maintained by ODA for the protection of the citizens of Oregon and their post-secondary schools by identifying those degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)." See also Diploma mill. Finally note [2]which lists other occurances of CUotS and which may be similar attempts to persuade readers that the mill is legit. --Tagishsimon (talk)
• Delete per concerns raised by User:Tagishsimon. Seems like a diploma mill's trying to make itself seem more notable than it really is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per rewrite. Article is still a stub, but at least by now, notability is asserted by means of reliable sources. Kudos to User:Tagishsimon for improving the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong/Speedy Delete This is a fraud-university add, see this guardian article. There is no real university (only a learning institution), it is not accredited, it is in Cheshire, England (while the city of Canterbury is in Kent and has no university of that name), the Seychelles part seems to be for legal reasons at best. There are no references, no links, no google hits for this institution besides WP-articles and I couldn't find it at the Seychelles department of education website. It only exists to screw foreign students. Thanks to the nom for reporting that s@#t! Malc82 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I have rewritten the article, it is now properly referenced and, I think, balanced. I think it is probably notable enough to stay; and by doing so it might achieve a useful purpose. It is, needless to say, on my watch-list. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Comment With the complete rewrite to a "diploma mill"-article, my former comments are of course obsolete. I will also include it to my watchlist. Malc82 01:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in its rewritten form (see comment above). Malc82 01:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wow. this is one of the worst spamming backfires I've seen here yet. I endorse keeping the article in its present form, but it will have to be watched carefully for evidence of respamification. Also, someone should stare at the present version for a while and figure out how to say, "Major educational watchdogs seem to think they're crooks," in an NPOV-sounding way. Do it for Jimbo. --Dynaflow babble 02:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)