Jump to content

Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrandDude (talk | contribs) at 08:16, 6 May 2016 (→Serious notability issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thank you. COI noted here --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious solution is to merge the contents into an article on the group. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just want to point out that nothing said or done here can prevent anyone from making a request to delete an article at WP:AFD, and if anyone does, the consensus there will decide, as judged by an uninvolved administrator. What can and should be decided on article talk pages is discussions about the content or title of an article --and even that is subject to further WP:Dispute Resolution. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My plan of action per the discussion here is to merge and redirect London College of Contemporary Arts and LSBF School of English to LSBF Group and also create a redirect to that article from Global University Systems. Whether to change the article's name over the redirect can be decided at any time and discussed at Talk:LSBF Group. For now, I'm going to redirect London School of Business and Finance Manchester and London School of Business and Finance Canada to London School of Business and Finance. Then, over the next few days, I'm going to drastically edit the dreadful London School of Business and Finance article. That won't preclude any potential future decision to delete or merge it with LSBF Group. Ditto St Patrick's College, London, although that is less of an urgent case. BrandDude, if your multitudinous postings and edit requests, at Talk:University Canada West are anything to go by, I doubt very much that you would be much of a help in fixing the deep-seated problems with the London School of Business and Finance article, but that remains to be seen. What we're not going to do is have the article's content micro-managed by the company's brand manager via the talk page. I've seen that happen many times on Wikipedia. It's a complete time-sink and rarely productive. Voceditenore (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's exactly the kind of behaviour that WP:PAYTALK is talking about – WP:disruptive editing by paid users.
Your plan of action seems a good one, VdT, though a ship-load of work. I removed some copyvio at the LSBF page, there could well be more; there's certainly very little useful or even credible content. The page history makes the first week on the Somme look like a ladies' tea-party. Maurits van Rooijen is going to need some serious attention at some point, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pinged and there followed a short discussion at A suite of dubious for-profit college articles. Like DGG, Voceditenore, and Justlettersandnumbers, COI, paid advocacy, business and education articles are my specialities on Wikipedia but although these issues could probably use my tools and pldding systematic research, I'm afraid I don't have much time this week and next. I will say this though, in the light of JLN's comments on my tp, at this stage a CU is probably more than justified especially seeing how BrandDude appeared to side step a leading question above. Ping me if you need some eyes on deleted articles, and I'll leave it to DGG's discretion on the use (or request for use) of some special tools that even I don't have access to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I just want to address a few points:
Regarding User:Mezzenga and other potentially undeclared COI editors: there have already been a number of discussions about this in the past and even a well-documented sock puppet investigation. I think those issues were mostly led by an intention of correcting and updating information, but without any awareness of WP's guidelines and best practices for COI editing – people simply didn’t know there was a system in place for them to achieve the outcomes they were trying to enforce. In the past year or so, I have personally tried to educate people internally on how Wikipedia works and about what is or isn't appropriate. People have been advised to refrain from editing and not engage on articles related to any of the schools within the group. Any issues are usually brought directly to my attention and I try work with the community to address them. Wikipedia is something that most companies don't really understand, but we're trying our best to do things right (and to me this is a constant learning curve).
My contributions to Talk:University Canada West have been mostly focused on correcting outdated information. I worked closely with experienced volunteer editors in a friendly way and I usually left it for them to decide the best way forward. I appreciate that you have a different way of working and I'll respect your requests for me to step back.
Voceditenore - I have absolutely no intention to micromanage the pages and will try to limit my contributions to pointing out the most up-to-date and correct info (where RS are available, of course). My only suggestion for now would be to check whether the approach recommended on WP:UNIGUIDE would be appropriate for any of the articles that you'll be working on - but I'll leave the decision to you.
Any questions, feel free to ping me. Thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_College_of_Contemporary_Arts&oldid=718895145"