Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qualitas Career Academy

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their nomination with no outstanding support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitas Career Academy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Unsourced article about a non-notable company,~~ the tone is also advertorial. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's a further education college. Here is a FE Colleges in Scotland article, which shows these how articles types are valued. Sure there is no sources, but these can be added fairly painlessly. I do think it reads like an advert and it needs structural change, but it doesn't need rewritten. scope_creep talk 15:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is merely a commercial organisation, a company that sells training, not a real college (as in a public taxpayer funded institution). I don't see how the existence of a list of colleges in Scotland is in any way, shape or form relevant to the existence of an advertorial article about a commercial "diploma mill" in South Africa. In South Africa real FE Colleges are state-owned public institutions, not private for-profit companies. If there are indeed sources cited that will allow this article to qualify under the WP:CORP notability criteria I will withdraw this AfD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them). A notice suggesting citations and sources is in place.Roger's comment about what constitutes a 'real college in South Africa' overlooks legislation that allows for public and private institutions. Further commentary using derogatory terms made by the user suggesting the AfD indicates some bias. This is not the only private company on WP, ner the only private educational one... There are templates that once placed, call the community to assist and improve an article. Wikicheesecake (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations added, included news articles. (talk) - you are of course entitled to the opinion that a particular organisation is a "diploma mill", however, rather use WP guidelines, which you seem to know well, to promote better copy. The issue of "real colleges" / diploma mill should be cleared up by reference to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa. It is certainly not the case that the only 'real' colleges in South Africa are state owned. Hence the need for accreditation by state funded mechanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.57.162 (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination The the article now complies with WP:CORP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2013 (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.