Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raffles College of Design and Commerce

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. Sandstein 13:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raffles College of Design and Commerce[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Australia has lots of questionable private training providers, and this is no more notable than the average fly-by-night one. Every source is either a primary source to the tertiary regulator making some decision about them, to their own website, or media coverage of some non-notable event they were involved in. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Very strong keep~~ for as long as the Accreditation section stays as it is. People might read it and be warned off so that they do get not fooled by such an organisation. Perverse reason for keeping I know! I reckon it meets ACADEMIC and ORG by being officially recognised as so NOT worthy of accreditation. Aoziwe (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete. I must apologise for my very late at night my time and somewhat emotive response above. While purposeful, it is not exacly within guidelines! The subject simply does not meet GNG guidelines. For example, the major IRS in its own city pretty much only, and rarely, mentions the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was an accredited degree-awarding institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In nearly all other circumstances, I'd agree - but hundreds of these private providers popped up with little fanfare as a result of an Australian government policy change a few years back. Most of them are just a rented office somewhere. Very few have ever received any coverage in reliable sources of any sort, and many just disappeared without a trace. I once lived near a "health college" that operated out of a smash repairer. These really should be an exception to that - you're just never going to find any sources for any of them because the sources don't exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tried to do some research to find additional sources for this page with little luck. Even the lost accreditation wasn't covered in a reliable source. Leaving the page up as a warning isn't a valid reason to keep in my opinion. At least without the proper sources to back up the claims made here. Betanote4 (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could not find sources! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2019 (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.