Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Distance Learning Accreditation Council
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 delete. --Coredesat 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] National Distance Learning Accreditation Council
Unnotable accreditation mill. When this was created I looked into this and found only one article from a magazine (its the one source cited). It is not an approved accreditor or tied to any credible school, and I noted it accordingly. Thus, since it is not recognized by the Department of Education it must pass WP:CORP. I see no evidence of that. What city is it in? What country is it in? There is not enough material for an article, and as it stands it is an article about what it isn't. Therefore, not wikiworthy. Arbusto 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 05:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete although the article has been edited over time to completely dismiss it's subject as unofficial. The council fails WP:CORP --Steve 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It appears to be an organization trying to establish notability through the use of wikipedia. That puts the cart before the horse. Sorry, unless proof of notability outside of wikipedia can be established, it must go --Jayron32 05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Although I agree that it may not pass WP:CORP, I think it's important to keep it for people to find credible and factual information regarding what they claim to be. While one can infer a lack of credible information to mean the organization isn't credible, I don't think most people would see it that way. Should we delete information on Snake Oil just because they were charlatans? Isn't it important that other people not be fooled? While i've disagreed with the wording of the previous article in its professionalism, I have agreed that it should be noted for it's attempt to decieve people.12.207.87.61 11:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)- Delete I'm going to ammend my position above. After reconsideration, if the organization doesn't meet WP:CORP then it should not have it's own entry. However, it should remain on the List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning.12.207.87.61 11:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
