Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of 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 no consensus. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine[edit]

These medical schools lack notability. Whilst many sources mention each one, coverage is not detailed and in-depth. A teaching college normally gains notability through the recognition of it's teaching and research. The articles are also being used as a soapbox and a great deal of content fails WP:NPOV. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 10:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the Notability, NPOV and Soapbox criteria mentioned above:

As well as the original author of each article, I've also notified the top 5 contributors (including anon IPs) given by http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ for each article (link from WP:AfD), except for one retired user. However, I have not sent multiple notifications to those authors who appear in the top 5 for more than one article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the second nomination for University of Health Sciences Antigua, please see the previous discussion here, which was closed as Keep. Leuko 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above rationale. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These articles are misleading. They are often written by and present views of those "in power," and even prevent current students and school officials from editing. Certain third party websites and forums are more informative. And of course, calling and visiting the school is the best. DrGladwin 20:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC) User may have conflict of interest. See Talk.[reply]
Delete per rationale above, soapbox and propaganda reasons. Buzybeez 15:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not in a position to take sides over a battle between different universities. This article is nothing but propaganda. Wikipedia shouldn't endorse itself as a foreign medical school credential imposing agency. There are many other agencies who are qualified to verify medical credentials through official means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangster001 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — Kangster001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Nothing meaningful provided. These articles are one-sided and don’t reveal the entire image of the medical school. They are more like editing battle grounds. UISKuwait 01:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC) — UISKuwait (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Since, as a new user, I am unable to add my opinion to the main page, I would like to voice my opinion to delete the pages in question here. I agree with the reasoning that the page lacks notability. Most of the references are lists, many of which do not even relate to the school or its oversight directly. The others are also indirect or self published references with only one reference that even directly addresses the main school in question. It appears that there are two diametrically opposed groups here who either love or hate this school and its page is being used more for propaganda than real information. --Stevemackey 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzybeez (talk • contribs)
Delete I agree with UISKuwait Drouch 22:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a college is of obvious encycolpedic interest. I'm not yet convinced that these are primarily scams and not colleges that should be dropped, despite the presence of much smoke. JJL 14:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This school is notable as an educational institution in and of itself. Andrew73 14:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With over 30 citations and mentions in WP:RS, this school most certainly meets WP:N. Any other perceived issues are not a rationale for deletion, and can be worked out on the article's talk page. Leuko 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of the 31 citations, 5 are self published (one is listed twice), 10 make no mention of the college, and 13 are lists (2 are listed twice). Of the remaining 3 references, one is a passing mention in an article about another college, one is a BBC article about the college and the third I am unable to access. There is only any depth of coverage in at most two of the references, and 10 of them make no mention of the college, but are being used to support WP:OR within the article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can imagine deleting an article about a college hardly anyone had heard of. These schools don't fit that pattern, since there are many reports about them. If there is a controversy about accreditation, Wikipedia can write about it calmly and neutrally, using evidence from reliable sources. EdJohnston 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are schools of note and popular interest in their home countries. Many US students attend them, as well. They are clearly worthy of this encyclopedia. Bstone 17:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the above reasons. These articles have more references and sources and press than most articles on the rest of wikipedia. Cheers, PaddyM 19:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, there is no question that colleges are of notable interest to this project. Burntsauce 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:NOTE ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail", merely appearing in a list of institutions is not significant coverage. The majority of references for these institutions are merely that, the institution appearing in a list of similar institutions. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have looked at all the references for SCIMD-COM, and some statements made in the article based on those references. The majority of references are either (a) self published, (b) lists giving no significant coverage of the subject, (c) criteria from which inferences are being drawn WP:NOR. One reference mentions the subject superficially whilst discussing another medical school, one I can not check (requires subscription) and one appears to be a valid in-depth coverage of the college. Here's the breakdown by reference number in the current article:

1, self published

2,3 list of UK companies

4 FAIMER's IMED is an international list of medical schools based on data provided by their relevant governments

5,6 self published

7 =4 (list)

8 WHO list of medical schools

9 list of colleges not recognised by the State of Oregon

10 UNESCO list of schools

11 self published

12 GMC list "Private UK based medical colleges"

13 GMC list "Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC"

14 The only reference accessible without payment that has any in-depth coverage

15 Makes no reference to the college, but has a link to the list used as ref 16

16 ASIC list of "organisations which have been brought to our attention offering degrees and we suggest you undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study."

17 UK list of institutions approved to teach foreign students for student visa / immigration purposes, which contains no reference to the college

18 UK visa requirements, no reference to the college

19 Statement relating to the meaning of inclusion on list at ref 17, no reference to the college

20 Alabama Board of Medical Examiners, Physician Licensee Application, makes no reference to the college

21 International Medical Schools Disapproved by the State of California list makes no reference to the college, there is no reason for this reference to be present in the article

22 Medical Schools Recognized by the Medical Board of California list makes no reference to the college

23 Medical Licensing Board of Indiana list of QUESTIONABLE FOREIGN MEDICAL SCHOOLS

24 Kansas State Board of Healing Arts list of approved and disapproved schools makes no reference to the college

25 Kansas 65-2873. "License to practice healing arts by examination; prerequisites; postgraduate study; use of title and degree." makes no reference to the college

26 State of Maine list of "Unaccredited Post-Secondary Educational Institutions"

27 New York State Education Department, Office of the Professions, Division of Professional Licensing Services, Medicine Unit, License Requirements, Physician makes no reference to the college, also not a valid reference for anything relating to the State of New Jersey

28 Unable to access the reference without payment

29 Mentioned in passing in relation to an investigation into a different medical school, coverage is superficial

30 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board list of Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas

31 self published

Combining information from two or more sources to determine something that none of those sources state directly is WP:OR.

The use of references 17 through 19 to determine that study at the college does not qualify for a UK Student Visa is WP:OR

The use of reference 20 to infer that the MD awarded by the college is not recognised by the State of Alabama is WP:OR

The use of references 21 and 22 to infer that the college has never sought recognition from the State of California is WP:OR

The use of reference 24 and 25, combined with references 1 through 6 to infer that the MD awarded by the college is not recognised by the State of Kansas is WP:OR

Reference 21 appears to be presented in a manner that suggests that the college is "disapproved" by the State of California, when the truth appears to be that the college has never sought approval by that State, this fails WP:NPOV.

All 4 articles are about subjects that lack WP:NOTABILITY, contain WP:OR, are written in a manner that fails WP:NPOV, and are being used as a WP:SOAPBOX. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the vocabulary of the above suggests a strong subconscious reinforcement towards systemic bias. See Countering systemic bias. It is driving WP to be USA-centric by AfD. As for 'educational standards' - maybe (by the same logic) Europe should insist that Americans on vacation must take European driving test before they are allowed to hire cars, because the USA test are so less demanding; or does regional variation not matter when it comes to enjoying oneself? (some of the articles could still do with some improvement but deletion removes that possibility).--Aspro 18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The inclusion of the school in various lists in various countries that state it is not accredited, not eligible for licensure, etc, is significant coverage since these are official state agencies. As far as WP:OR, the article only contains cited facts written in a neutral way. For example, the article states (supported by ref) that the school is not listed on the DFES Register. In addition it states that no student will be granted a visa if studying at a college not listed on the register. Both are true facts, supported by WP:RS. There is no synthesis in the article, and no WP:OR, merely facts. Leuko 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment When you take two referenced facts, and combine them to draw a conclusion, that's WP:OR. Combining the presence or absence of the institution in list a on website A with the wording of rule b on website B to determine fact C is therefore WP:OR. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment: It's WP:OR if the article's text synthesizes, however simply citing facts from WP:RS is not WP:OR. Leuko 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree when you say "neutral" way. For example, the article on Caribbean Medical University is clearly biased. Sure, there is no tangible WP:RS supporting its attempt to get accredited, but so what? Visit the school campus or call the administration and see what I mean. These articles reflect nothing but a bunch of WP:RS from external websites posted by different people supporting or opposing certain claims. In simple terms, it's like fighting a court case. In the end, there is nothing meaningful and informative. The editor with the most WP:RS, fancier editing programs, and more administrators on their side always seems to win. DrGladwin 21:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: First of all, WP is not a battleground, so I don't know what these sides and winning are. WP is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia, where anything must be previously published in WP:RS. Therefore any statements, such as attempts to get accredited, which are not published in WP:RS are WP:OR. Leuko 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: “WP is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia?” Then why are some editors threatened by bans? I also disagree with your definition of WP:RS. The WP:RS you mention are nothing but a bunch of lists and tables that don’t make sense as stand-alone pieces of information. When were these WP:RS published? Are they even valid now? You can phrase your sentences anyway and provide WP:RS out of context to support it. For example, according to the University of Health Sciences Antigua page, schools listed with the WHO “must have their degree validated.” Now, what kind of intentions did the author have? Good? Or bad? No one knows. Except that the author had WP:RS to prove it. I personally know UHSA students rotating in NY hospitals, but I don’t have WP:RS to back my claims. Also look at the St. Chris article. It’s reduced to nothing but accreditation information and/or what the school isn’t and couldn’t do. Any intelligent person can recognize these articles as biased. DrGladwin 22:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise to the nominator, who made have done so in good faith, but in light of the repeated and extensive attempts to "game" this page, it is clear that, whether as a school, a college, a degree mill, or whatever, there is notability present. Accordingly, IMHO, the article should be kept. My suspcions is that many of the deletionist comments are being or will be made by those who want the whole business swept under the metaphorical mat. Or by the Cabal. (Attempt at humour, there: humour, Ah say!!) -- Simon Cursitor 06:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have no interest in the subject myself, and I don't care if these colleges are diploma mills or excellent teaching colleges or whatever in between, my concern is for the integrity of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a consumer watchdog, it's an encyclopaedia. The authors of these articles are not writing encyclopaedic articles, they're writing WP:SOAPBOX articles. All four articles are heavily biased and fail any test of WP:NPOV. The assertion of notability in all cases seems to be "it's a college that it appears in lists of colleges". Being a college or appearing in a list of colleges is not notability. From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" - appearance in a list is not addressing the subject directly in detail, and self published references (whether the website still exists or not) don't help to establish notability. Of 31 references cited by the most substantial of the 4 articles, 13 are simply an entry in a list, 10 make no reference to the article subject, and 5 are self published. One mentions the college in passing whilst discussing another establishment, one I can not access and only one appears to have any significant coverage. However, we don't create an article for every BBC news story. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aspro, you are 100% correct when saying "a strong subconscious reinforcement towards systemic bias." And DMcMPO11AAUK, your reasoning and logical approach to these articles, clearly as a 3rd party with no bias, is commendable. I'm happy to see someone fighting for what's right. These articles are nothing but drama and smokescreens, along the lines of competing cliques engaging in edit wars to show who's better. WP should not be a battleground for this childish activity, nor for being a consumer watchdog. Highly doubtful these articles would gain entry into a reputable printed enclyclopedia. I endorse DMcMPO11AAUK's well-reasoned, well-researched comments. Buzybeez 15:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Except as a student of St. Christopher's, you may have a conflict of interest, and you're endorsement may be seen in this light. As far as the arguments themselves, multiple international states and countries stating that these schools are unaccredited/fraudulent/unlicenseable is notable. If someone feels that the articles do not meet WP:NPOV, then they should be copyedited, and this is not a valid rationale for deletion. But as far as WP:NPOV goes, the policy requires that two opposing viewpoints be given the same treatment and weight. However, there is only one valid viewpoint which is backed by WP:RS here - that these schools are unaccredited. WP:NPOV does not forbid the inclusion of cited negative material. Leuko 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Leuko, I can't talk about all schools that were included in this nomination, however St. Matthew's University is accredited by the Accreditation Commission on Colleges of Medicine and recognized by the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation. The same body that accredited Saba University, and AUC [[1]]. Drouch 22:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the AfD closer. For background, I hope that the closer of this AfD will also take a look at an earlier AfD debate on University of Health Sciences Antigual, where many of the same issues were raised. Just to clarify, I have voted 'Keep' above. My overview of the Delete voters is that they are unhappy with the social process surrounding these articles, and they are afraid they are collecting negative information. I don't know exactly how to respond, except that when WP stands on principle it usually tries to *keep* articles that appear notable, regardless of how difficult they are to maintain. Since I haven't studied these comments carefully, I can't refute what they say about the difficulty of maintenance. EdJohnston 22:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Leuko: Leuko, I am sure that you can recognize that if being a St. Christopher's student is a conflict of interest, then yourself, as a competing foreign medical student should be a conflict of interest as well. Therefore, your opinion should be given equal weight to Buzybeez's. I feel these entries should be deleted as they are not notable and only receive so much attention because of the aggressive internet campaigns waged by offshore medical schools. Listings do not qualify as international notability. Stevemackey 11:49, 14 October 2007 (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.