Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts
 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. |
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of London College of Contemporary Arts be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in London may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Update
Hi all,
There are a few issues with this article and I would like to work with the Wikipedia community to address them. Let me declare straight away that I have a COI here as London College of Contemporary Arts is one of the organisations that I represent – you can see my user page for more details. I will also register my COI on the WP:COIN shortly.
I want to reassure all editors here that I intend to work with the community to find the best solution for this article. I understand that reliable sources to support this article haven’t always been easy to find, so I would be happy to discuss what other editors would consider the best outcome. I believe there might be an issue related to original research as well, but I trust this could be easily resolved if we have the right sources.
I understand that a number of editors have agreed back in 2013 that the article should be deleted. I would like to know whether current editors would still consider that is the best option.
The Viking, AJHingston, Peterkingiron, Justlettersandnumbers and Ymblanter – since you all took part in the discussion in 2013, may I kindly ask for your views on the deletion?
I look forward to collaborating with you all!!
Thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi all - just as an update, I've declared my COI on the WP:COIN. You can see it here. Grateful for your support! Thanks. - BrandDude (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. COI noted here --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Serious notability issues
Right now, I'm seeing a pretty comprehensive failure to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), with no evidence that it has degree-awarding credentials in the UK, which would have possibly helped it scrape a pass at AfD. In my view this article should never have been recreated after the first AfD. It's part of a whole suite of problematic promotional articles for the LSBF Group, all of them created by SPAs. The article on its parent institution London School of Business and Finance is equally problematic (although it has attracted enough negative publicity in independent sources to probably pass the inclusion criteria, and the article on yet another of its divisions LSBF School of English is even more promotional and non-notable than this one. See also London School of Business and Finance Canada whose "official website" is this and was the subject of the 2013 article in the Times Higher Education "Private college hit by ‘restraining order’ and fine".
The only independent sources that I have been able to find for London College of Contemporary Arts are:
- Della Bradshaw (5 September 2013). "Gisma rescued by for-profit education company". Financial Times (simply listed as one of the of the "institutions" in the LSBF Group, in turn owned by the Global University Systems company)
- Shiv Malik, Andrew McGettigan and John Domokos (30 May 2014), "Lecturers claim private college puts profits first". The Guardian (this one talks a fair amount about the college and the LSBF Group in general—none of it complementary)
- David Matthews (15 August 2013). "University suspends visa sponsorship programme". Times Higher Education (simply listed as one of the of the "institutions" in the LSBF Group and affirming that Glyndwr University had decided not to accredit its degrees)
- Nick Martindale (3 March 2015). "Creative degrees: the route to employment?". Daily Telegraph (one-sentence mention)
Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- The most obvious solution is to merge the contents into an article on the group. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is also my thinking, DGG. None of these institutions are independently notable, although the group, for which London School of Business and Finance seems to be the mouthpiece, has received sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources (albeit almost invariably negative) to source a brief article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Full agreement with Voceditenore and DGG. This "college" has no independent notability, nor apparently any real existence independent of LSBF; its address, 9 Holborn, is the registered address of the LSBF – the shop-front next door to McDonald's shown in the 2014 Guardian article has, however, since been changed to read "London College of Contemporary Arts" (per Google Maps). Strangely, the website is registered to an individual rather than to a reputable company or institution (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neri Karra). I agree that there's enough coverage of the various goings-on to merit some coverage here (and can't help feeling that we also have some sort of "duty to inform"); I've no opinion whether that coverage should be at London School of Business and Finance or at Global University Systems. Given the history ofsock-puppetry in relation to these pages, it'd be good if they were permanently watch-listed by several responsible editors. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- DGG, Justlettersandnumbers, and Kudpung, per DGG's suggestion, I've created a new article LSBF Group which covers the UK "institutions" collectively described as that in reliable sources. I propose to merge all the existing articles on those institutions to that article. This includes London School of Business and Finance which is a lengthy obfuscating morass of incorrect, out-of date, promotionalism and whose current length is not remotely justified by the independent coverage it has received. GISMA Business School in Germany and the University of Law, recently bought by Global Education Systems, who also own the LSBF Group, have their own articles and histories as independent institutions. In the case of the University of Law, the history was a long and distinguished one before they got into financial difficulty and were gobbled up by a private equity firm who sold it to Global Education Systems. I do not intend to merge those into the article. Thoughts? Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi all, thanks for your feedback. I would not oppose to the deletion of this page as it is pretty clear that it fails to meet the notability criteria set on WP:NCORP. In addition, there don’t seem to be anywhere near enough reliable sources to build an article in line with the best practices and recommendations described on WP:UNIGUIDE. Deletion seems to be the most plausible option for now, at least until the school gains some adequate notability for its academics, history and rankings. Let me know your views.
- Voceditenore - Thank you for your efforts in trying to hit the nail on the head - your new article reads really well! However, I don’t think that describing the group as the “LSBF Group” would be the most accurate way to put it. As far as I understand, the 'LSBF Group' doesn’t really exist as a business entity, so I'm not sure if it would be appropriate for WP (please let me know your views on this as you're more experienced than me). I believe some publications have mentioned the ‘LSBF Group’ in past news stories to make it easier for people to understand the connection between the institutions, but Global University Systems is the actual umbrella name which encompasses the different schools within the group, including GISMA, University of Law, LSBF and LCCA. Despite being part of the same group and sharing some operational functions, most of these institutions operate independently from an academic perspective. I hope this feedback is helpful - let me know your thoughts. I will be more than happy to work with you on a neutral and accurate article about Global University Systems if you think that would be a better option. Thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- DGG, Justlettersandnumbers, and Kudpung, per DGG's suggestion, I've created a new article LSBF Group which covers the UK "institutions" collectively described as that in reliable sources. I propose to merge all the existing articles on those institutions to that article. This includes London School of Business and Finance which is a lengthy obfuscating morass of incorrect, out-of date, promotionalism and whose current length is not remotely justified by the independent coverage it has received. GISMA Business School in Germany and the University of Law, recently bought by Global Education Systems, who also own the LSBF Group, have their own articles and histories as independent institutions. In the case of the University of Law, the history was a long and distinguished one before they got into financial difficulty and were gobbled up by a private equity firm who sold it to Global Education Systems. I do not intend to merge those into the article. Thoughts? Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Full agreement with Voceditenore and DGG. This "college" has no independent notability, nor apparently any real existence independent of LSBF; its address, 9 Holborn, is the registered address of the LSBF – the shop-front next door to McDonald's shown in the 2014 Guardian article has, however, since been changed to read "London College of Contemporary Arts" (per Google Maps). Strangely, the website is registered to an individual rather than to a reputable company or institution (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neri Karra). I agree that there's enough coverage of the various goings-on to merit some coverage here (and can't help feeling that we also have some sort of "duty to inform"); I've no opinion whether that coverage should be at London School of Business and Finance or at Global University Systems. Given the history ofsock-puppetry in relation to these pages, it'd be good if they were permanently watch-listed by several responsible editors. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is also my thinking, DGG. None of these institutions are independently notable, although the group, for which London School of Business and Finance seems to be the mouthpiece, has received sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources (albeit almost invariably negative) to source a brief article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- We used similar names for groups of institutions in India and some other countries, where privately owned colleges and the like are common. We use however the common name, and if Global University Systems is the commonly known name, then it should be the title. In any case, the redirects from the names of the schools should get people to the right place. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- DGG – thank you. I agree that a potential article concerning the group should be correctly named as Global University Systems. While articles such as LSBF School of English, London School of Business and Finance Canada and London College of Contemporary Arts lack notability and therefore could be deleted and redirected to the newly created group article, I think a consensus should be reached before any major decision is taken about the London School of Business and Finance article. Obviously, the article itself requires significant improvement (I’ll be happy to help the WP community to address that in the near future), however I think the school is notable enough to maintain its standalone page and there is an adequate number of independent sources to help with that. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- BrandDude. The LSBF Group is not a business entity, nor is it described as such in the WP article. It is what reliable sources and the LSBF and their co-members themselves use refer to those "institutions" collectively—not unlike the Russell Group. See, for example, [1], [2], [3]. The murky morass of the various Dutch holding companies is immaterial to that. For example, St Patrick's College was bought in 2012 by Interactive World Wide Limited which also owned the LSBF, etc. Interactive World Wide was owned by Aaron Etingen, who surprise, surprise, owns Global University Systems. GUS acquired St. Patrick's College in 2014 after the college's technical ownership had been transferred to a Dutch shell company, St Patrick's Holdings BV. The LSBF Group websites also obfuscate the fact that while some of their so-called "educational partners" are completely independent and not owned by Global University Systems, e.g. Edexcel and Concordia University Chicago, most of them clearly are. The article could be moved to Global University Systems (with some re-jigging), if that's the consensus. London School of Business and Finance could potentially be kept, if there's a consensus, but it needs drastic cutting to bare unpromotional bones and virtually everything in it is out of date, including their claims to have MBAs degrees validated by Grenoble Graduate School of Business. BrandDude, can you please clarify who your client is? Is it only London College of Contemporary Arts or do you represent any other Global University Systems brands, or indeed GUS as a whole? Voceditenore (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- BrandDude, I don't want to to be unduly inhospitable, but if DGG and Voceditenore, two particularly capable editors with a comprehensive understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice, are already on this and prepared to put effort into it, it is really, really unlikely that you could help to address anything in any significant way. We care not one whit what companies say about themselves, far less about what their employees want us to say about them. You have been very helpful in drawing attention to this mess, though, for which I thank you.
- I see that you have many and large edits to Talk:University Canada West. In case no-one has yet invited you to do so, may I ask you read WP:PAYTALK, and particularly the last two sentences of that paragraph, which you may find relevant? Do you have any connection to User:Mezzenga, by the way? – or is it just co-incidence that you are both interested in exactly the same topics, and that you started editing four days after that editor stopped? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- BrandDude. The LSBF Group is not a business entity, nor is it described as such in the WP article. It is what reliable sources and the LSBF and their co-members themselves use refer to those "institutions" collectively—not unlike the Russell Group. See, for example, [1], [2], [3]. The murky morass of the various Dutch holding companies is immaterial to that. For example, St Patrick's College was bought in 2012 by Interactive World Wide Limited which also owned the LSBF, etc. Interactive World Wide was owned by Aaron Etingen, who surprise, surprise, owns Global University Systems. GUS acquired St. Patrick's College in 2014 after the college's technical ownership had been transferred to a Dutch shell company, St Patrick's Holdings BV. The LSBF Group websites also obfuscate the fact that while some of their so-called "educational partners" are completely independent and not owned by Global University Systems, e.g. Edexcel and Concordia University Chicago, most of them clearly are. The article could be moved to Global University Systems (with some re-jigging), if that's the consensus. London School of Business and Finance could potentially be kept, if there's a consensus, but it needs drastic cutting to bare unpromotional bones and virtually everything in it is out of date, including their claims to have MBAs degrees validated by Grenoble Graduate School of Business. BrandDude, can you please clarify who your client is? Is it only London College of Contemporary Arts or do you represent any other Global University Systems brands, or indeed GUS as a whole? Voceditenore (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- DGG – thank you. I agree that a potential article concerning the group should be correctly named as Global University Systems. While articles such as LSBF School of English, London School of Business and Finance Canada and London College of Contemporary Arts lack notability and therefore could be deleted and redirected to the newly created group article, I think a consensus should be reached before any major decision is taken about the London School of Business and Finance article. Obviously, the article itself requires significant improvement (I’ll be happy to help the WP community to address that in the near future), however I think the school is notable enough to maintain its standalone page and there is an adequate number of independent sources to help with that. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- The most obvious solution is to merge the contents into an article on the group. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Voceditenore and Justlettersandnumbers thank you. To clarify, I work for Global University Systems. I understand that there have been issues with a number of articles and a number previous editors (more due to lack of real understanding of WP policies than anything else, to be honest), but now I’m here to work with you and assist where required, in line with the Wikipedia COI policies. I’m happy to provide as much information as possible, answer any questions and point you in the right direction. I also have access to a log of media coverage dating back to 2010, so I can easily share with you anything that you’re having difficulty to find. Many thanks - BrandDude (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)