Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine

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 Keep. Synergy 01:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine[edit]

It's a minor trade school, and there do not appear to be any really independent sources for it, outside of a puff piece in a (apparently minor) trade magazine. Surely a little more than that is necessary to establish a school as notable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being listed as "authorized" on the Washington Higher Education gives it notability, along with the articles from Acupuncture Today. Is it a "minor" school? Are the sources "minor"? Perhaps, but it has enough to keep. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the question is whether this is a college, in which case it is generally considered as always notable, or a trade school, which usually isn't. Since it gives an accredited master's degree, it's a college. DGG (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But one accredited by the trade's organisation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to question the accreditation body when evaluating criteria for whether this masters degree-conferring institution is a college or a trade school, is nothing more than demonstration of systemic bias. This is a college, and therefore notable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: To question the accreditation body is sensible and should be done with references, not deletion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-awarding body. TerriersFan (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.