Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Business Schools

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 Keep, redirect and delete!. Keep Allied Business Schools, redirect Allied American University to Allied Business Schools and delete Allied American University (AAU) in line with conclusion by Urbanrenewal, which appears to have consensus and is a sensible solution. SilkTork *^YES! 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Business Schools

The article's history shows that the author's interest has been in enhancing the linkage to the school's websites rather than in resolving the problems noted in the article (notability, reliable sources), and he removed the issue tags without remedying the problems. Now I see that on his user page, User:Estrva, he identifies himself as Sean Lee. At http://www.linkedin.com/in/seanlee77 we find that Sean Lee is the Search Engine Optimization Specialist at the school, so it becomes clear that this article has been placed here purely for promotional purposes. WP:Advertising applies. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it refers to the same institution and because its history shows that it was created by an author named User:Allieduniversity and that it was then picked up by user Estrva:

I am also nominating the following page that redirects to the previously mentioned one and that was also created by user Allieduniversity:

Delete per well researched nom, the copyright info for the logo on the article has User:Estrva claiming ownership, raising COI issues, and the article has existed for a while, with no efforts to fix problems in maintenance templates. --Terrillja _talk 20:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles very clearly have majorWP:Advertising issues but the remedy is not deletion of the articles. I think notability can likely be established which leaves the WP:COI issues to be resolved in the articles themselves. I would recommend a major cut of the articles' offensive materials and a deeper dive for some third party sources. On quick inspection I have seen a variety of sources discussing the schools (most of it not particularly positive). If the articles cannot be salvaged, I would then agree that deletion is warranted. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion unarguable is a remedy for advertising since advertising is expressly grounds for speedy deletion, though I chose to put this article through AfD. And so it should be: you can hardly prevent people from using Wikipedia to advertise if the only penalty is that the language gets toned down a little, and if it gives them the satisfaction of knowing that all they have to do is post, and someone will jump to rewrite their article for them. Should they have that kind of control? "Dance, puppets, dance!"? We have all these guidelines that stress over and over again that writing about topics involving a conflict of interest is "highly discouraged". There isn't any point saying that unless the activity of concern is highly discouraged.
As has been told to advertisers and self-promoters many times, "If you are notable, someone else will write about you". We're serious about that, aren't we? I'd hate to think it's a hollow slogan. There is no benefit to having an article on a topic, even a notable one, before someone chooses, voluntarily, on his own schedule (i.e., not out of an urgent need to squelch an advertisement without resorting to deletion), to write something about it that isn't a violation. In the meantime, the advertising shouldn't be on Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been at it for just a few minutes and already am coming up with some interesting glimpses on this company. I would rather end up having an objective article about this scam of a "school" rather than just delete it. I like the fact that you can point out that they try to pass of a second rate accreditation as legitimate. If they put it up on Wikipedia they don't have control over it and probably it ends up as an advertiser's worst nightmare. Maybe adding some content from the consumer complaints about the company. I think when 60 minutes goes knocking on these guys' doors it would be good if there was already an article here. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine overall that you were interested in doing something about it, and if the article becomes legit, then the grounds for deletion goes away. My remarks above were directed more at the idea of leaving a spam article around until someone gets around to doing something about it, or, worse, feels obligated to do something about it. And while I still mean what I said about not rewarding the advertisers by snapping to attention, I fully endorse adding any warts that can be found (as long as the whole is presented in a balanced manner, of course). I had a field day last month when a loan company in Australia wrote an article about a particular loan product it was selling—a low documentation loan, just the sort of loan that wreaks all kinds of financial havoc. I located a couple of commentaries by the Australian tax authority on the negative aspects of these loans and on the authority's drive to audit a large percentage of taxpayers taking them out. I rounded out the article with this information. Then I found that the author, who had previously put links on his own website leading to his Wikipedia article, removed those links shortly after my I'd accomplished my deed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I made some pretty significant edits. It still needs work but I will give it another go when I have some more time. I would strongly suggest merging the articles if this survives AfD as the Allied American University is just one brand of online school operated by the company. I have this one on my watchlist so I will do my best to keep it from getting re-spammed. Just for the record on initially reading this I agreed with you for nominating it but thought this was one that could be saved. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the school is notable, we deal with problems by editing, not deletion. DGG (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. It has been suggested that Allied Business Schools and Allied American University should be merged. Reading the articles, that seems like a maybe a good idea. And the resultant product could be viewed very different here than this stand-alone. Can we delay this decision until someone implements this suggestion, and then bring it back for another look? Un school 06:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the following:

Keep Allied American University as notability is independently established, and the spam issues have already been corrected, apparently.
Merge Allied Business Schools to Allied American University as this is a better fit for this article as opposed to keeping or deleting.
Delete Allied American University (AAU) as an implausible search term. (Normally, this should be discussed at redirects for discussion, but that would just get in the way of the process.) MuZemike (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the above suggestion, however disagreed with the direction of the merger. As I originally proposed, this is an article about a for profit education company not one of its particular brands (in this case Allied American University). Therefore I have gone ahead and completed the merger of Allied American University into Allied Business Schools. I would be in favor of deletion of Allied American University (AAU) as proposed. If people are satisfied on notability then I think this is a pretty good result for the moment for the main Allied Business Schools article|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:40, 31 December 2008 (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.