cmt |
Daniel kenneth (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:::: My bad. Lost count of the dramas. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
:::: My bad. Lost count of the dramas. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::<small>Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<font size="-2">1000</font>]]</sup></span> 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)</small> |
:::::<small>Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<font size="-2">1000</font>]]</sup></span> 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Delete''' The school is a fraud and this school is not notable enough. [[User:Daniel kenneth|Daniel Kenneth ]] ([[User talk:Daniel kenneth|talk]]) 16:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:31, 17 April 2016
European Graduate School
- European Graduate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Private educational organization. As the article history shows, there seems to be a longtime problem with promotionalism and COI editing (see also AN/I thread). This should lead us to reexamine the organization's notability, as the previous AfD is very old and seems to have had canvassing and socking issues too. To be sure, this apparently isn't a diploma mill but a real school with real faculty, and it is recognized by the Canton of Valais as a "private school of tertiary level" ([1]). But the many cited sources are mostly dead links, and what can be accessed seem to be mostly passing mentions (such as interviews with teachers in which it is mentioned that they are faculty there), or regurgitated press releases. If there is a reliable independent source that covers this school in sufficient detail (which may well exist), then we should keep the article, but as it is the sources appear rather thin. Sandstein 21:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: dead links should be fixed whenever possible (and it's often possible) and anyway their being dead isn't really a reason to consider the article less notable than it would otherwise be. Similarly, COI editing and promotionalism may put in some doubt the genuineness of previous "keep" stances, but since it's WP:NOTVOTE, they would have been judged by their merits, not their count, by the discussion closer, and as such I wouldn't say they somehow influence the article's notability and right to exist. LjL (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I think there are reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, here are two: [2][3]. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The first source looks acceptable, but the other is just a reproduced press release - we'd need another. Sandstein 09:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. In the 10 years since the last AfD (and the fact that this is the third go-round is telling), there should be more sources than the two cited by Vanjagenije that the school is trying to get accredited in Malta. Sources in the article are passing mentions or directory listings. Miniapolis 23:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- We accept public and private high schools even without much verification. Sandstein, why wouldn't we here? As long as the thing can be proven to exist, it can easily be argued that this is inherently notable. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of a guideline stipulating inherent notability for schools. In any case, such guidelines only offer a presumption of notability, which must still be tested through reliable sources if challenged. Sandstein 09:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily in favor of deletion of this article (I lean towards keeping), but I find your argument strange: generally speaking, notability isn't the same as existence for Wikipedia's purposes, and I'm not sure why this would be different for schools, even if other schools exist. LjL (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't think that the problems with the SPA and COI editing of the article indicates that it should be deleted, but that it should be semi-protected on a long-term basis. BMK (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - _ A balanced article about an educational institute that clearly exists and falls within our generally accepted practice for schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)keep
Keep reluctantly. COI & SPA are not reasons to delete an article. And should be kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)- Delete, more toruble than it's worth. This is a school of no objectively provable merit and its SEO team are determined that we musthave a hagiography, making the beusiness of maintaning NPOV very tiresome. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Trouble vs worth is not a criterion for deletion; notability and verifiability are. Can we concentrate on those? A simple test: would we keep the article if it weren't for "the school's SEO team"? If yes, then is this a revenge? LjL (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:LjL. We have deleted several articles where there was marginal notability at best and there was heavy promotional pressure, and the consensus was that the article was not worth keeping due to the volunteer effort it was taking to maintain the neutrality of the article. I am not saying that is the case here; it is just an increasingly common factor in deletions discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I consider it a spurious one and not in the spirit of what guidelines about deletion recommend. Deletion is a very extreme measure since it's one of the few things that removes material from most editors' accessibility (since it cannot be retrieved from the history), and taking this route for petty reasons of revenge against disruptive editors or unwillingness to keep an article tidy is dangerous. I'm sure it has been done before, but I'm sure other silly stuff has been done before. LjL (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- You can consider that as you may; it puts you outside the consensus that is developing. Do not mischaracterize it as "petty revenge"; it is a question of wise use of community resources in presenting the public with articles that provide summaries of accepted knowledge and keeping out abuse of Wikipedia for promotion -- all of that is in NOT; the policy and pillar. There is nothing petty or vengeful in it. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- If articles are being deleted not on grounds of lack of notability of verifiability but due to the fact they're being disrupted, that is a self-evidently inappropriate use of the deletion process by my understanding of everything about Wikipedia, so that's how I am characterizing it. There is a discussion about actual notability being started below: that seems a much more worthwhile deletion debate than one based on fixing disruption by more disruption (which deletion of otherwise appropriate articles is). LjL (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:LjL again you are not responding to what I am actually saying. What I said was where there was marginal notability at best. If an article is a slamdunk "keep" based on NOTABILITY this argument has not been at play in the past. It has only been used if an article is borderline. If you are at all experienced in Wikipedia, you know that there are quite a few marginal articles. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- If articles are being deleted not on grounds of lack of notability of verifiability but due to the fact they're being disrupted, that is a self-evidently inappropriate use of the deletion process by my understanding of everything about Wikipedia, so that's how I am characterizing it. There is a discussion about actual notability being started below: that seems a much more worthwhile deletion debate than one based on fixing disruption by more disruption (which deletion of otherwise appropriate articles is). LjL (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- You can consider that as you may; it puts you outside the consensus that is developing. Do not mischaracterize it as "petty revenge"; it is a question of wise use of community resources in presenting the public with articles that provide summaries of accepted knowledge and keeping out abuse of Wikipedia for promotion -- all of that is in NOT; the policy and pillar. There is nothing petty or vengeful in it. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I consider it a spurious one and not in the spirit of what guidelines about deletion recommend. Deletion is a very extreme measure since it's one of the few things that removes material from most editors' accessibility (since it cannot be retrieved from the history), and taking this route for petty reasons of revenge against disruptive editors or unwillingness to keep an article tidy is dangerous. I'm sure it has been done before, but I'm sure other silly stuff has been done before. LjL (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:LjL. We have deleted several articles where there was marginal notability at best and there was heavy promotional pressure, and the consensus was that the article was not worth keeping due to the volunteer effort it was taking to maintain the neutrality of the article. I am not saying that is the case here; it is just an increasingly common factor in deletions discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Trouble vs worth is not a criterion for deletion; notability and verifiability are. Can we concentrate on those? A simple test: would we keep the article if it weren't for "the school's SEO team"? If yes, then is this a revenge? LjL (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note - I went through the history of the article last night and listed all the SPA and conflicted editors who had multiple edits in a connected contributors template - there were many IP addresses with one or two edits that were clearly promoting EGS/removing criticisms that I didn't list. But there are about 40 there. See Talk:European_Graduate_School. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can anyone show that this meets WP:N? We've got COI editors causing problems and trying to make the place look good. And _that_ has caused our article to turn nearly into a platform for attacking it instead (the accreditation section at the moment has had it's actually verified accreditation removed and nothing but largely irrelevant negative stuff in its place--all done/maintained by admins under full protection). Frankly it's an embarrassment and if this doesn't meet our notability requirements we'd be best off deleting it. I'm leaning toward
deletebased on WP:N, though if sources show up that count toward WP:N then I'd have to move away from that point. Also, we are almost to the point WP:CSD#G10 applies. Hobit (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- if sources show up that count toward WP:N then I'd have to move away from that point [of leaning toward deletion] – Hobit (talk · contribs), I've listed several sources below that provide significant coverage about the subject. I agree that the "Accreditation" section is problematic because it contains irrelevant negative material sourced only to primary sources (the accreditation agencies). I'd recommend removing that material if it cannot be sourced to third-party reliable sources.
The "Accreditation" section should include information from this 19 January 2016 article from the Times of Malta, which says, "The EGS was accredited and licensed in Malta as a higher education institution last year, and is also fully accredited under the European Bologna process."
It also does not include information like this 22 June 2015 article from Malta Today, which says, "Already accredited as a university by Switzerland, EGS is now looking to be accredited as a university by Malta, having already received accreditation by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) as a higher education institution in Malta."
I'd like to add this information to the article to make the "Accreditation" section so the article will comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, but I cannot do so because an admin has fully protected the article.
And based on the article's history, an admin removed accreditation information sourced to third-party reliable sources added by another admin but has kept in accreditation information sourced to primary sources.
- Thank you for evaluating the sources, Hobit (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- if sources show up that count toward WP:N then I'd have to move away from that point [of leaning toward deletion] – Hobit (talk · contribs), I've listed several sources below that provide significant coverage about the subject. I agree that the "Accreditation" section is problematic because it contains irrelevant negative material sourced only to primary sources (the accreditation agencies). I'd recommend removing that material if it cannot be sourced to third-party reliable sources.
- Delete per nom - school seems unaccredited as well. SQLQuery me! 10:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any way to ever trust the NPOV of this article unless the "SEO team" leaves it alone, which won't happen. Since WP:NPOV takes precedence over WP:Notability and since the topic is barely notable at best, and we don't seem to have any way to noindex it, toss it. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- What you say is completely and dangerously wrong: NPOV does not take precedence over notability in a deletion discussion. Saying that an article's topic is notable yet the article itself is currently WP:RUBBISH is specifically an argument that needs to be avoided in deletion discussions. The article is non-neutral? So fix it, don't cut off pieces of an encyclopedia. WP:AFD itself mentions
The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either
, and surely, an article about a school is not intrinsically POV and can be salvaged. Really, I am starting to be appalled at how many of the deletion arguments here are based on WP:IAR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than grounded in policy. LjL (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC) - Hi LjL, I agree that if an article has fixable NPOV problems, it's usually better to fix the problems than delete the article. For this article, I gave my reasons for believing the NPOV problems are not fixable in practice (I'm not interested in abstract theoretical possibilities). Since I don't think we should be willing to keep such an article permanently, that leaves deletion. Deletion is not irreversible: if someone later manages to write a version that meets our standard of neutrality, there's a few different ways to undo the deletion. This happens sometimes, usually because new sources became available after the deletion that are good enough to support a neutral article. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with the above, and struck my previous vote. This version is never going to be neutral and spam-free, and WP:NPOV trumps WP:GNG. Therefore, I believe we should delete, with no prejudice to a non-conflicted editor writing a neutral tone article in the future. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- What you say is completely and dangerously wrong: NPOV does not take precedence over notability in a deletion discussion. Saying that an article's topic is notable yet the article itself is currently WP:RUBBISH is specifically an argument that needs to be avoided in deletion discussions. The article is non-neutral? So fix it, don't cut off pieces of an encyclopedia. WP:AFD itself mentions
- Delete as currently lacking sources showing the topic satisfies WP:GNG. The many links are, as described above, dubious mentions. The current fuss about what accreditation in Malta involves shows the ephemeral nature of the school—if a reliable source had even a brief outline of the organization as an educational institution there would be no need to argue over such matters. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment only for now as I'm uncertain how to comment thus I'm asking DGG for analysis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.Leone-Ganado, Philip (2016-01-19). "School that spawns activists is to offer courses in Malta". Times of Malta. Archived from the original on 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-04-02.
The article notes:
With the continued controversy surrounding the American University of Malta, a foreign university planning to open its doors in Malta in the coming months has largely slipped under the radar.
European Graduate School president Hubertus von Amelunxen, however, is not at all concerned that the AUM controversy could negatively affect his university – because, as he describes it, the two could hardly be more different.
...
The EGS, which will hold its first residency in Valletta in March, was established in Switzerland in 1994, offering Master’s and doctorate-level degrees from a campus in the remote mountain village of Saas-Fee.
Since then, it has established itself as an unconventional centre for cross-disciplinary study, with a unique focus on collaborative learning and a dedicated commitment to fostering radical social change.
The Occupy Wall Street protests and Spanish political party Podemos, now at the forefront of the European anti-austerity movement, both started their life as projects created by students during the course of their studies.
The EGS faculty, meanwhile, has included such names as French philosopher Jean Baudrillard and Slovenian writer Slavoj Žižek.
...
The EGS was accredited and licensed in Malta as a higher education institution last year, and is also fully accredited under the European Bologna process.
While it will not have a permanent campus in Malta, the EGS plans to set up a long-term presence on the island through a series of one-month residencies, the first taking place in March at Fort St Elmo.
The residency will see high-profile academics including American philosopher Judith Butler and Cameroonian political scientist Achille Mbembe delivering intensive sessions on subjects ranging from politics and philosophy to filmmaking, all while living and working with students.
Dalli, Miriam (2015-06-22). "Swiss grad school seeks university status in Malta: Already accredited as a university by Switzerland, EGS is now looking to be accredited as a university by Malta, having already received accreditation by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education". Malta Today. Archived from the original on 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-04-02.The article notes:
I don't consider this article to be a press release. Although the "About EGS" section at the end of the news article is based on https://developer.egs.edu/administration/about/, the rest of the article is reporting by a journalist.European Graduate School (EGS) is one of two universities that last year submitted an application, kicking off the process to receive university status in Malta, MaltaToday can confirm.
Already accredited as a university by Switzerland, EGS is now looking to be accredited as a university by Malta, having already received accreditation by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) as a higher education institution in Malta.
Although EGS has no immediate plans to open a dedicated campus in Malta or Gozo, Jennifer Davy – assistant to EGS president Hubertus von Amelunxen – confirmed that a search was being conducted nonetheless.
...
Now MaltaToday is also informed that EGS also intends offering evening lectures for free to the Maltese public: “EGS will bring distinguished faculty in Philosophy, the Arts and Social Theory to Malta, and we welcome an open forum.”
...
EGS’s first residential course in Malta – a compulsory component of its MA and PhD in Philosophy, Art and Social Thought scheduled for Spring 2016 –will start with roughly 50-60 students.
MacLaughlin, Nina (2003-04-10). "Going the distance: Thanks to an increasing number of distance-learning programs, a college degree might be no further away than your computer". The Phoenix. Archived from the original on 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-04-02.The article notes:
One of the best examples of that flexibility is the European Graduate School (www.egs.edu) based in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, which offers MAs and PhDs in media and communications and taps the best minds in the field to teach its courses. Instructors include luminaries such as social philosopher Jean Baudrillard; filmmaker David Lynch (Blue Velvet, Mulholland Drive, Twin Peaks); avant-artist-hip-hopper Paul D. Miller; and cult-trash film director John Waters (Hairspray, Pecker). "It’s pretty amazing to be reading a book or watching a film and simultaneously discussing it with the person who wrote or directed it," says Heather Kapplow, who’s currently pursuing her PhD in communication and new-media studies at EGS. And not only are the instructors top-notch, but the students bring international perspective: Kapplow has classmates in Madrid, Tel Aviv, Germany, and Canada, among other countries. The three-year MA program ($14,410) and the four-year PhD program ($15,620) combine Internet-based learning with two intensive three-week summer residencies in Switzerland. Each credit is $330; the total cost factors in travel and lodging expenses for the Saas-Fee summer session.
The EGS Web site offers some insight into the type of student it seeks. For one, "it helps if you’re considered provocative" and have a "keen sense of humor." It’s an education for people who are "disenchanted with an academic system more concerned with the past than the future." The curriculum requires students to be aggressively independent in their thinking in an intensely intellectual environment. EGS discourages "the traditional thesis or dissertation," explains Kapplow. "In addition to a text, you’re expected to make an attempt to bring what you’re learning in the life you’re immersed in to your project, be it through film, fiction, an event, or a Web site." EGS "treats things like the production of artwork, music, or social activism as education," adds Kapplow, "as the praxis end of education. And there’s an assumption that your real life is teaching you things that you could never learn in a classroom."
"So much percolating in the avant mind". Los Angeles Times. 2003-04-20. Archived from the original on 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-04-02.The article notes:
The media and communications program of the European Graduate School, a 9-year-old institution based in Germany, Switzerland and New York, and offering advanced degrees in a number of specialties, describes itself in expansive terms: "Aiming at creative breakthroughs and theoretical paradigm shifts," its literature says, it brings students together with "visionaries and philosophers of the media world."
On the school's Web site (www.egs.edu), a quick scan of quotes from some of those "visionaries and philosophers" (faculty members range from "black lady of deconstruction" Avital Ronell to New York musician and conceptual artist Paul D. Miller, a.k.a. DJ Spooky That Subliminal Kid) gives a kaleidoscopic taste of how minds are working in the avant-media realm:
Borg, Martina (2015-06-09). "Education Minister says foreign universities' identity to remain classified. Swiss-owned European Graduate School will offer an MA and a PhD in Philosophy, Art and Social Thought in VAlletta as from next year". Malta Today. Archived from the original on 2016-04-02. Retrieved 2016-04-02.The article notes:
One of the institutions has gone public about its application to offer university level courses in Malta. As from next year, the Swiss privately funded European Graduate School which will offer an MA and a PhD in Philosophy, Art and Social Thought (PAS).
In fact at the end of last month, the European Graduate School / EGS announced its new residency program in Valletta, beginning spring 2016.
In a letter published on the institution’s webpage, president Dr. Hubertus von Amelunxen wrote “it is my pleasure to announce that EGS is now an EU accredited Institution of Higher Education by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education, Malta.”
- @Cunard: would you consider adding these sources to the article itself, if not already present, and/or elaborating on them on the talk page for this page, instead of keeping this wall of text with full citations here? It is always my opinion that AfD pages should be dedicated to relatively brief opinion statements and debate if necessary, not extensive evidence of the article's notability: that belongs in the article itself, as it should speak for itself. LjL (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I made a reply to this comment. My reply was deleted by Vanjagenije (who failed to restore my comments when restoring a "delete" vote he also removed) who insists on collapsing the quotes here. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments says:
Vanjagenije failed to get my permission to edit or delete my comments. The guideline further states:It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.
That Vanjagenije insists on refactoring my comments against my objections and removing my comments that oppose his actions is poor behavior by an admin.Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]".
- I made a reply to this comment. My reply was deleted by Vanjagenije (who failed to restore my comments when restoring a "delete" vote he also removed) who insists on collapsing the quotes here. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments says:
- Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG, appears not to be an accredited institution, so it wouldn't even meet the much lower standards at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Onel5969 TT me 3:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)
- @Onel5969: Sources are above which seem to be well over the bar of the GNG. Also, it _is_ accredited. It's just our article that indicates it's not. That's untrue, but we've got admins using protection to keep any reference to its accreditation out of the article... Hobit (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well: WP:TNV. And not accusing editors of cover-ups would be a bonus. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:TNV says Wikipedia is about what reliable sources says, but Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for itself. If other sources state that this school is accredited and it's true that somehow that information is being kept out of the article, then WP:TNV definitely doesn't apply. I don't know if this is the case, but Hobit claims that it's "just our article" (and not reliable sources) indicating it's not accredited, and that there exist "references to its accreditation". If these references exist, they need to be added to the article and accounted for in WP:N assessment. LjL (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Diff where accreditation information was removed while the article was under protection: [4]. Talk page has the details of attempts to get the undisputed accreditation back in. I think my characterization of the situation is accurate. Do you disagree? Hobit (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for that diff: which highlights the institution's lack of accreditation. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well: WP:TNV. And not accusing editors of cover-ups would be a bonus. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: The School is accredited in Malta. Accreditation was granted by National Commission for Further and Higher Education, aMaltese Institution legitimate to confer accreditation according to the 2012 revised Education Act [6]. I do not understand why other users still say that this school is not accredited. If the article does not reflect the current EGS accreditation is because the administrator who have looked over the article so far refused to edit it and when a different administrator tried to add the Malta accreditation info he promptly reverted it. The issue is also raised in the EGS talk page. Thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC) — Claudioalv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- delete most of the sources brought by Cunard are classic "passing mentions" which do nothing to help a discussion of NOTABILITY - we need sources with substantial discussion of the subject of the article. The issue that has roiled this article for some time now - its accreditation - is a great example of this. I spent a lot of time looking for secondary sources discussing this issue, and all we have are the two pieces from the press in Malta which are really not independent of the question since the accreditation is in Malta. And even those sources don't discuss EGS' moves in Malta in light of recent controversy within Malta about recently lowering their standards for academic institutions (see here); I have no idea how those issues fit (or don't fit) with EGS' presence in Malta. Overall, this is a case where we have an article on a marginally notable subject, that is under a great deal of promotional pressure from the subject of the article; we can't resolve that pressure definitively due to lack of high quality sources and so the disputes are endless time-sucks, so we should just delete this so the editing community can spend its time more productively. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog. I do disagree with you because Malta is a democratic and sovereign country. Your comment implies that degrees conferred in malta are lower standard so each Maltese School should not be recognized. In the same list there is also University of Malta and I think that it is not correct to state that University of Malta is a University and European Graduate School is not. Both are recognized by the same Institution (NCFHE) Claudioalv (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Claudioalv I specifically disclaimed the meaning you say I am inferring. I wrote: "I have no idea how those issues fit (or don't fit)". Stop mischaracterizing other people. Your arguments also have nothing to do with the criteria of the deletion discussion. I am only replying to you because you are an attorney and have made legal threats against other editors here and I am not putting myself at the same risk. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I do not understand when you say I am not putting myself at the same risk. I am spending my free time writing here as I stated in my talk page. My purpose is to raise an argument and not make legal threats. If I did it in the past I apologize and was not my purpose. I just said that your argument was contradictory because there are other University in Malta and Wiki defines them as University. And probably was the same source which say EGS is accredited. That's it. Claudioalv (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- My argument has no contradiction in it and you still don't seem to understand what i actually wrote. And please sign your posts, claudio. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- This page is about the deletion of EGS article because of lack of notability, according to you there is no substantial discussion in the Maltese sources and you wrote as an example the accreditation issue. I think that if there is "an accreditation issue" is because the administrators who have looked over the article so far do not agree that Maltese Accreditation Institute is a reliable source until a secondary source (an independent publication) says something about the accreditation. It is like if a new accredited school has to find an independent journal to confirm its accreditation, if not Wiki does not recognize it. I do not understand this policy and this is the reason why I replied to you. In fact, as an example, the Maltese Accreditation Institute does recognize University of Malta as a University, but University of Malta Wiki article does not have the same "accreditation issue". Probably (I am just speculating) because the administrators who looked over that article does think the Maltese Accreditation Institute source is a reliable source. Claudioalv (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- You still are not talking about anything I wrote (I said nothing about "there is no substantial discussion in the Maltese sources") yet you indented your reply as though you were actually talking with me.....If you want to respond to anything that I actually wrote, I would be happy to hear. If you just want to keep making your own arguments, please don't format them as though you are responding to me.
- Let me just repeat what I said yet more clearly. This article should be deleted because 1) there are insufficient high quality independent secondary sources with substantial discussion of EGS (it is marginally notable, in our technical language); 2) the article is under substantial pressure from advocates; 3) this creates endless arguments in which the advocates in #2 just repeat their arguments based on weak sources endlessly and we don't have high quality sources (per #1) to resolve these arguments definitively; 4) these endless arguments are a big drain on the precious, limited resource of volunteer time -- time that the volunteer community could otherwise be giving to strongly NOTABLE topics that really need volunteer time. That is what I am saying. Nothing you have written responds to any part of that. Not any part of it. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- You wrote that "The issue that has roiled this article for some time now - its accreditation - is a great example of this" (i.e. Community needs sources with substantial discussion of the subject of the article). I do disagree with you because the issue of its accreditation (or license) is not a real issue. That's it. If there was an issue was not because of me or because of SPA, but because an ad refused to address it so far. If someone would have addressed two months ago, my time and the Community time would have not been wasted. But this is an old history. I can see that you have well addressed it in the talk page and I totally agree with your post there. thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog. I do disagree with you because Malta is a democratic and sovereign country. Your comment implies that degrees conferred in malta are lower standard so each Maltese School should not be recognized. In the same list there is also University of Malta and I think that it is not correct to state that University of Malta is a University and European Graduate School is not. Both are recognized by the same Institution (NCFHE) Claudioalv (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Per cogent analysis by Sandstein, above. Sandstein, was there ever an WP:SPI investigation filed about this issue? I see the one WP:SPA account at Claudioalv (talk · contribs) -- are there any other related accounts you are aware of ? — Cirt (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can answer to you by saying that I do not know any related accounts. As I said in my talk page I am individual who decided to join Wiki community because I found some info not correct. My purpose was not to promote this school, but only to raise the argument that it is accredited in Malta and that two US sources are outdated (Maine and Michigan). Claudioalv (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't checked for prior investigations or socks and so can't tell you if there were or are any. Sandstein 06:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Note that I closed the discussion as no consensus [7] but then was asked to reopen it [8]. Unlike many complaints about my AfD closes, I find this request reasonable and justified, and I reopen the discussion. Obviuosly I will not be the one closing it again.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm struggling with why there is an issue here. We have sources. The first 2 listed above are solely on this topic. The 3rd has two paragraphs. The rest have more than a passing mention (though the LA one is really weird). Accreditation isn't an inclusion issue as far as I know. But if it _is_ for some strange reason, we have the accreditor saying it's accredited. We don't need a secondary source for that. I'm not at all fond of the way this article has been handled (and I'll continue to claim our admins are nearly as much of a problem as those engaged in puffery). But puffery can be dealt with via protection (ideally semi protection IMO, but...) and isn't actually an issue with the article as it exists (in fact the opposite it the problem now IMO). Hobit (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for opening that, Hobit. I and others don't agree with your analysis of the sources. There is only really one independent source with substantial discussion and that is The Phoenix which is an alternative weekly newspaper; pretty low quality. There is a bit more discussion in the sources from Malta but one of those is a thinly recycled press release and they are really local papers covering local news. The LA Times is a passing mention. If EGS were really notable we would have many more independent secondary sources giving substantial discussion to it. (I have spent several hours looking. Maybe I missed stuff but I don't think so. I would be happy if there were one really high quality, independent secondary source with substantial discussion - just one from something like The Chronicle of Higher Education, the NYT, the Times of London. the Telegraph, the Guardian... heck if there were something in a high quality source German or French or Italian I would be open to that. (why is there nothing from a Swiss source, since they have been there much longer?) There is nothing like that at hand. This is very far from slam-dunk notable subject. It is marginally notable at best. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll point out that local sources aren't an issue with respect to WP:N. Your point about press releases I get, but I do disagree. I think it's pretty far over the bar, but as you say, it's obvious others disagree. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. With DGG's hefty (in more ways than one) !vote below I think there is no way this article will be deleted (it will either be as originally closed, or even as keep), but i still don't agree. :) On the local thing, it is my understanding that there have been deletions where N was based mostly on local sources... but I am not going to beat this dead horse anymore and have already started working on improving the article. I was waiting to do much there until it was more clear if the article would be kept or not. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll point out that local sources aren't an issue with respect to WP:N. Your point about press releases I get, but I do disagree. I think it's pretty far over the bar, but as you say, it's obvious others disagree. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for opening that, Hobit. I and others don't agree with your analysis of the sources. There is only really one independent source with substantial discussion and that is The Phoenix which is an alternative weekly newspaper; pretty low quality. There is a bit more discussion in the sources from Malta but one of those is a thinly recycled press release and they are really local papers covering local news. The LA Times is a passing mention. If EGS were really notable we would have many more independent secondary sources giving substantial discussion to it. (I have spent several hours looking. Maybe I missed stuff but I don't think so. I would be happy if there were one really high quality, independent secondary source with substantial discussion - just one from something like The Chronicle of Higher Education, the NYT, the Times of London. the Telegraph, the Guardian... heck if there were something in a high quality source German or French or Italian I would be open to that. (why is there nothing from a Swiss source, since they have been there much longer?) There is nothing like that at hand. This is very far from slam-dunk notable subject. It is marginally notable at best. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Enough sources to establish notability for an educational organisation. Problematic editing behaviour is not dealt with by an AFD. AusLondonder (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Accreditation is not necessary for a college to be notable. Just as WP contains articles on various irresponsible methods os pseudo-medicine, the same applies in education. Frankly, I have no real idea about the nature of the EGS accreditation. Determining this from available sources requires the interpretation of ambiguous primary documents. It is entirely unclear whether the Malta accreditation is for the school, or for a course--the various documentation available there is not consistent. Nor can we tell whether the EU really does recognize some or all of its courses --my guess is that it might recognize one or two but not all of them. I do know that I as an educator would be extremely skeptical about the status of its accreditation. But that's not the point. We do not in practice follow the GNG in schools, by long outstanding practice. In order to avoid debates just like this one about the precise nature of schools, and the exact details and degree of reliability of the sources; it's simpler to just include them above a certain educational level., and not otherwise. The GNG is a guideline, and a guideline is something we usually follow; this very statement implies it is not something that we always follow--that not only can we in principle make exceptions, that we do. The evidence that we do is the 60 or so AfD discussion a day right here, most of which are devoted to figuring out exactly the boundary. After 10 years & 100,000 instances here, we still are arguing each individual case.
- I notice with considerable dismay that some of those arguing for delete here also often argue for deletion of articles on non-conventional medicine, on the same grounds that the sources are unreliable or unsubstantial . The easiest way to keep out something one doesn't like, is to say this, since there is not clear boundary for the meaning of either of those terms., For any article where I have argued for keep on the basis of interpreting these terms, I could perfectly well have said just the opposite, and v-v for the ones where I've argued for delete. Perhaps I can best clarify it by doing just that; by giving just such arguments, and saying pick one, according to whether or not you think in belongs in an encyclopedia.
- The true purpose of the notability guideline is to enforce the principles of NOT DIRECTORY and NOT PROMOTION. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage, as does accepting articles about things that nobody but the proprietor is interested in. Once we become a directory or vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. The usefulness of the GNG is to make sure that things covered here have been discussed sufficiently in the outside world, that people might rationally come here to look for information on them. Reliable in the relevant sense does not been "high quality"--it does not mean the type of source necessary to justify a statement of disputed fact in an article. Given the nature of this particular encyclopedia, it is reasonable that people will come here looking for information about any higher educational institution, and therefore outr coverage can be justifiable more inclusive than usual. We are writing an encyclopedia for practical use, not a purely abstract exercise. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - with people like Jacques Rancière and Slavoj Žižek on its books (as mentioned in reliable sources), people are likely to search for information on the EGS, and we have coverage in reliable sources such as this, on which to base an article. We should therefore have an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to pass notability requirements. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- You will have to expand on that. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH: [9], [10], [11], [12]. North America1000 00:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Is no one troubled that the 'RS' (Times of Malta) that is being relied on for accreditation (Malta confirms accreditation in Switz.?), also says 'The Occupy Wall Street protests and Spanish political party Podemos … … both started their life as projects created by students during the course of their studies'? This a post-graduate-degree-awarding institution that despite 21 years of existence, doesn't get any significant coverage in its base country and is reliant on brief features in a place where it offers 3-week summer courses to validate its existence/notability/accreditation? EGS is proud to announce its new residency program in Valletta, Malta, beginning spring 2016 (21 March–13 April 2016). Regarding the 'people on its books', notability is not inherited and doesn't an uncited claim that 'Derrida' was a founder, cause anyone to be even a tad sceptical about the weakness of these sources? I don't know the laws of Malta, but can tell everyone that I have accreditation to organise summer courses on a Med. island, the process was bureaucratic, involved health checks, building inspections etc., but ZERO academic or 'non-safety' investigation. Why should it? The island is simply giving me permission to bring students there, not validating anything. I agree with others that NPOV and non-promotion should take precedence over other considerations inc. 'long-standing practice'. Pincrete (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pincrete, my comment about the people who are on the EGS's books wasn't supposed to imply that notability is inherited from them. It was rather a poorly expressed argument about one possible value in having the article. The EGS affiliations of these well-known scholars are often mentioned in mainstream media, so my thinking was along the same lines as DGG's comment that "people might rationally come here to look for information". What bothers me is the lack of available sources. There are some, but why doesn't an institution with such high-profile scholars affiliated to it get much more coverage? I've spent quite a long time searching, and the more I do so, the less sure I become (even about what the institution actually offers - e.g. is it really just a summer school?). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think we all understand the ambiguous nature of the accreditation, but that is part of the reason for having the article. It can be difficult to make this clear in the article, but it can be done. NPOV indicates what should be said, not whether we should have the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- DGG, actually quite a few people here seem to be taking 'accreditation' at face value. When sources are very thin, as I believe is the case here, it can be very difficult indeed to create a neutral account without engaging in OR (such as what 'accreditation' actually means).Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry, my remarks were not specifically addressed at you, I was mainly cautioning against an 'if these names are connected (Derrida? in the Sw village article), it must be notable', when the extent of involvement may be very marginal at best. The Malta connection is certainly a short residency (3.5 weeks) according to the Malta source and EGS's own website. There is a US source that describes 'internet + residencies in Sw'. If mainstream RS give more than passing mention (having given a single talk at some time?) to these 'notables', then a valid connection is established, otherwise I fear we are reliant on publicity blurb traceable to the institution itself, which does not appear to be modest about its claims.
- I think we all understand the ambiguous nature of the accreditation, but that is part of the reason for having the article. It can be difficult to make this clear in the article, but it can be done. NPOV indicates what should be said, not whether we should have the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not knowing what EGS is and who has 'accredited' it, and in what sense is also an issue. In the UK accreditation implies validation of academic standards, in some jurisdictions, a 'licence' is obtainable which validates nothing more than building safety standards etc. (I have such a licence). I know nothing about accreditation in Sw or Malta, but would caution against accepting EGS's claim at face value, even its own website says it is accredited by its canton. What does that actually mean? … … addendum My suspicions as to whether Malta EGS is 'accredited' or simply 'licensed' appear to be well-founded. Malta law allows self-accreditation, if Jytdog is correct here. Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a bit puzzled why there's so much discussion about accreditation here. There is no doubt to me that it's a government-accredited private university in Switzerland, per the link given in the nomination, whatever its status in Malta may be. But that's quite immaterial to notability, which is about coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 15:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not knowing what EGS is and who has 'accredited' it, and in what sense is also an issue. In the UK accreditation implies validation of academic standards, in some jurisdictions, a 'licence' is obtainable which validates nothing more than building safety standards etc. (I have such a licence). I know nothing about accreditation in Sw or Malta, but would caution against accepting EGS's claim at face value, even its own website says it is accredited by its canton. What does that actually mean? … … addendum My suspicions as to whether Malta EGS is 'accredited' or simply 'licensed' appear to be well-founded. Malta law allows self-accreditation, if Jytdog is correct here. Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. There is a mass of commentary about the questionable content of the school's courses, none of which appears in reliable sources. A big chunk of the content is sourceable only from directories, and literally the only people who give a monkeys about the article are the school's SEO team and the poor buggers who have to keep defending the article form them. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- there are sufficient poor buggers quite prepared to defend this and any other article from SEOs. If we removed from WP every article being used by SEOs we'd be an encyclopedia without coverage of current politics,sports, business, and entertainment. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @JzG: You can't !vote twice. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- My bad. Lost count of the dramas. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- My bad. Lost count of the dramas. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- there are sufficient poor buggers quite prepared to defend this and any other article from SEOs. If we removed from WP every article being used by SEOs we'd be an encyclopedia without coverage of current politics,sports, business, and entertainment. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The school is a fraud and this school is not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)