Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisdom University

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. Level of significant coverage not shown to be reached Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom University

Obscure unaccredited institution. No current third-party coverage in article, and little-to-no potential for correcting this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. California state law under which this institution obtained degree-granting rights seems to have expired 01 Jul 2007 (see cpec.ca.gov and BPPVE). chuuumus (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found sources that barely mention this place in passing: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Not enough. Cazort (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are not significant enough to demonstrate notability. -- Lucas20 (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N Chzz ► 16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a general rule, all real degree granting universities, accredited or not, are probably notable. The substantial nature of this one is shown by its faculty list, [5]--a substantial number of them are actually notable, some with doctorates in conventional disciplines from good schools. It is just as important to have information on schools like this as it is on more standard institutions. In a sense, one might even say Wikipedia has an obligation to provide neutral coverage. I'lll just mention my impression from the materials that this is a relatively well organized group. DGG (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "As a general rule" = Fallacy of the undistributed middle (just because many "degree granting universities" are notable, doesn't mean that this one is); "a substantial number of" "its faculty list" = WP:NOTINHERITED (just because some of its (apparently part-time) faculty are otherwise notable doesn't mean that it is). Do you have an direct evidence that this topic meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG? If not, then what value does your "Keep" !vote have? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:40, 9 March 2009 (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.