Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education/Institutions removed from list for lack of sourcing or other issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The following institutions have been removed from this list at one time or another, primarily because of the lack of a citation to a reliable source to affirmatively identify the school as unaccredited.

As ElKevbo said:

Please note that merely being unable to locate an institution in a list of accredited institutions is not proof that the institution is unaccredited (in most cases, at least) and that is clearly original research which is prohibited in Wikipedia. Also, please note that this mass removal of institutions is in no way intended to be a cover-up, censorship, or other protest or disruption. Our policies and common decency demand that we provide reliable sources supporting the very serious assertion that an institution lacks accreditation. --ElKevbo 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Schools that have been restored the article are no longer listed.

I have removed the following institutions from this list as they are unsourced. Please replace if you have a source, can find a source, or if I have made a mistake:

Source is website of an advocacy organization with a POV to push; does not appear to be a WP:RS
Neither source confirms that either school is unaccredited. -- Orlady
This is definitely a Bible college; nothing suggests that it is accredited, but there is no source for lack of accreditation. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
These are definitely Bible colleges; nothing suggests that they are accredited, but there is no source for lack of accreditation. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
With a generic name and no other info, there's not enough here to make the list entry informative. --Orlady (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently does not award degrees. Link redirects to Eagle Forum article.--orlady 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Is not accredited, but currently avoids being listed here due to the technicality that its graduates get "diplomas," not "degrees."--orlady 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Has candidacy status with TRACS, which is pretty marginal for a school founded in 1980. I would not list a newly founded school that started up with candidate status from a regional accreditor, since schools are not eligible for accreditation until they have existed several years. Should that same deference apply to this one?--orlady 14:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Not degree-granting.
Not accredited, but does not award degrees.
University site does not discuss accreditation. Other source is an online forum, which is not WP:RS
Certainly appears to be unaccredited, but this is not reliably sourced. --Orlady (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be another name for Vision International University--orlady 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Comments from June 2007[edit]

It seems much cleaner to me to put the external reference in the article on the specific institution rather than than in this list. My suggestion is that documenting a source for their unaccredited nature in the Wikipedia articles is a much better way to do it when the institution has a Wikipedia article. Regards, Bill Huffman 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't use Wikipedia articles as references in other Wikipedia articles. I'm sure that many of these institutions with articles can easily be reinserted into this list with an accompanying reference from the appropriate article. I am by no means suggesting that that should not be done; in fact, I expect (hope!) it will happen rather quickly. But it was unconscionable to allow the article to remain in its current unsourced state any longer. --ElKevbo 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
ElKevbo, Amen! There's no reason to reinvent the wheel, but sources are required here even if they are provided elsewhere. It was T. S. Eliot who said, "Immature poets imitate, mature poets steal." This statement is all the more appropriate for sources, where theft is not even an issue. And for the large number of schools without Wikipedia articles, this excuse doesn't even fly at all. Sources are required unconditionally, especially in an article of this nature where a statement of a school's lack of accreditation that is false can really come back and bite us in the behind. Alansohn 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see value in this article. Anyone looking at this list probably has a specific institution that they are looking for. They should either find a Wikipedia article or nothing. I don't understand the purpose of this article. I understand that this article was nominated for deletion in 2005 but was voted to keep. The main argument apparently being that it is interesting to watch the red items on the list turn blue as they have articles created. This does not seem useful to me from an encyclopedia reader point of view, but if that is the real purpose of the article then perhaps it should just be stated at the beginning of the article. Take care and have fun, Bill Huffman 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)