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. Notability is not inherited so the notability for this institution has to come from reliable detailed third party sources. In weiging the discussion I need to measure the consensus against policy and the notability policy does not appear to be met here. Therefore the delete side have the better policy based arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canbourne University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Based on some web research, it seems very clear this is a diploma mill. The question is, is it a notable diploma mill. I haven't found any reliable sources that say it is, except for the reference in the article that shows a US Congressman claims to have "graduated" from here. I don't think that alone makes it notable, but I'm open to convincing on this point. All other references are to the Canbourne website iteself, or to websites that we're using because the lack of a mention shows it isn't a real University; fine, if the article is kept, but not anything we can base notability on. We aren't the Better Business Bureau; if this is truly a non-notable diploma mill (there are lots of them out there), we shouldn't keep it just to protect potential victims of a scam. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think it's notable, although weakly so. First, there's that Congressman (that's not sufficient by itself to make this outfit notable, but it's a contributing factor). Along the same lines, ghits don't indicate notability, but I get a surprisingly large number of ghits on people who list Canbourne degrees on their CVs (more than for the average diploma mill). More importantly, a 3rd party reference that used to be cited in this article got deleted because the URL died. Specifically, the article formerly included a citation to a public statement by a British Trading Standards department (London Borough of Tower Hamlets) calling it a "bogus university" and quoting an official as saying "Although the site appeared to offer UK degrees, Canbourne was not authorised to do so. The postal address given did not exist and the details on the website, including the biography of the Chancellor, were copied from an existing, registered university." Unfortunately, the link to the press statement has been dead since sometime in 2007, and the passage got deleted. My websearch found still another source: Canbourne is apparently one of the schools discussed in this journal article about higher education marketing -- but I don't have access to the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of the journal article is available here. Canbourne University is simply listed as one of the many unaccredited schools whose web pages the authors looked at. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I added four references to Canbourne University from four different state government websites and slightly more information from those sites. I think that the place is marginally notable. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (assuming it's kosher for me to do a bolded "delete" comment on my own nomination; feel free to change to a Comment if this is taboo). We've got lots of primary sources (and TallMagic added more good ones, which are useful if the article is ultimately kept), which as I understand it are OK to verify facts in an otherwise notable article. But notability is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Those, I don't see. Even if the PDF of the press release from Tower Hamlets which Orlady mentions was still available, I'm not 100% sure that would be a reliable secondary source, but it doesn't matter, as I cannot find a trace of it now, even in the Wayback Machine, in any case. There are currently zero verifiable secondary sources with anything close to significant coverage of this place, and I cannot find any new ones. While it irks me that deletion would make the scammers running the place happy, I can't support keeping the article based on that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the links provided above certainly can be used for verifying information, but don't establish this particular "university" as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Um. The sources are overwhelming links to lists of degree mills. I'm not seeing the significant coverage in secondary sources here. It's a degree mill, nothing to see here, move along. The Congresscritter thing is interesting, but notability is not inherited. Ray^Talk 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Has notable alumni which has often been seen as a claim of notability for schools and colleges. Whether the sourcing is enough to meet WP:N isn't completely clear to me but I'm inclined to be cautious for such things. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep N per Floquenbeam; content needs improvement but meets N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 龗 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Needs more inline citations but shows promising notability. --TitanOne (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only one gnews hit and it's a mention in someone's bio. It doesn't matter that some former congressman bought a degree from there. The school is a diploma mill, which really makes it a mild form of a hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Diploma mills are not generally called "hoaxes", but rather are "scams" or "frauds". Regardless, can't hoaxes and scams be notable hoaxes and scams? --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Why did I just know someone was going to try to make that argument? According to my dictionary (Random House) a hoax is a synonym for fraud or fake. And it defines a hoax as "something intended to deceive or defraud.". A fake degree from an unaccredited university that carries no actual weight is either a) a fraud to the buyer or b) a hoax on the unaware who are led to believe someone has academic credentials that they do not. In either case, hoax is an acceptable word to use. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly hoaxes, and scams can be notable; and diploma mills. For an example, there is Columbia State University I'm not convinced that this particular diploma mill is notable though. -- Whpq (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems notable and is an educational facility. Str8cash (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For the record, here are a few ghits on additional people who claim Canbourne degrees: (1) a former US government employee and law lecturer (one of the "principle [sic] architects of the Iraq Rule of Law program"), (2) the entrepreneur who founded Foot Solutions,[1][2] (3) a minister (apparently a televangelist), (4) a business consultant, (5) a martial arts and Chinese medicine specialist, and (6) a freelance specialist in ecological restoration. I did not list people who look like they might actually have degrees from the Camborne School of Mines. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem very notable. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:12, 3 August 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.