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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia School of Broadcasting

[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be an education institute of any (proper) type, and I can't find anything saying that it is or providing third-party verification. Proper schools are fine, but this screams diploma mill to me in capital letters. The problem is that I can't find anything that directly verifies that; it's just little hints. The website is designed by a five year old, which is instantly suspicious, and I cannot find any proof of the claims made (that Lou Riggs and Al Epstein taught a course, that it was mentioned in Letterman and various books, that it was the official NFL school). You'd think that if any of this was true, free-press-releases.com wouldn't be the only third-party source I can find. Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- Could list policy or guideline reference to the article; just calling it names or calling it subjectively negative things doesn't count as a deletion justification. Web page design in particular is I doubt something we ever have, should, or will make a claim about an article regarding. I'm not automatically disagreeing with your take on the article and some of that is quite suspect, but the discussion does need to be Wiki-based! ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a guideline reference, I linked to WP:GNG early on. My website-like comments are countering the standard assertion that all schools are notable; this thing screams diploma mill, with the layout being an example of suspicion. Ironholds (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubted your reasoning, but I understand it moreso now... I really had no idea that there was no WP:SCHOOL guidelines to follow; those were proposed and recjected. This quite surprised me. Oh well, opinion placed below. I never did doubt your evaluation. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I find it rather odd that there's no selected/written WP:SCHOOL-type guidelines. This means if it's some types of private education or early childhood care, adult continuing education, etc, that notability would be oddly vaguely to discuss, kind of like discussions on a person or band no one has ever heard of but has at least a little info. What a 'Diploma Mill' is can be explained, but it's still complicated. Thankfully, this seems a lot simpler than that. There seems to be no note of accreditation or actual 'school' identity and cohesion. Not one inch of this this article contains that would lend a shred of credibility to the sole source (official website). Since that alone can't be used as a source, and the article says a lot of quite specific things without any citation. If one were to try to decode what was possible advertisement text, what was true and what might be downright wrong, I'm not imagining there being much of an article left. Unless at least 1 of the 23,000 supposed alumni can come around and improve things, this is rather embarassing to have listed. If this were a biography article instead of a school, it would most certainly have been blanked for hoax-like claims and deleted in turn. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I can find quite a few references that mention this school (which appears to be an unaccredited trade school, but which had branches nationally and offered courses by mail, thus giving it a national reputation), but not much that discusses the school in detail. If we can strip down the article to only include facts sourceable to reliable sources, the article may be worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link them here, please? I couldn't find much other than press releases and the like. Ironholds (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are 189 Google Books hits and 334 Google News Archive hits. Granted, a lot of them are just directory listings or incidental mentions, but there are some which seem to imply that it's a school that the reader is supposed to have heard of before. "All that stuff for which Columbia School of Broadcasting charges $1,000 -- we teach them in less than an hour." [1] "Well, I never saw him at the Columbia School of Broadcasting. I guess he was too busy studying for a sportscasting career by playing tight end." [2] "It's like being invited to go to Columbia University and then finding out it's the Columbia School of Broadcasting." [3] "It wasn't as if Andre Dawson had slandered Ernie Banks. Or had slipped Harry Caray a phone number for the Columbia School of Broadcasting." [4] "Scott Brady is filling in during the transition and sounds like he just graduated from the world-famous Columbia School of Broadcasting -- very awkward." [5] "If I had met her at her granny's when she was a wee child I would have marched her right out of Mississippi and enrolled her in the Columbia School of Broadcasting at 6 and waited for her to grow into the role as the Queen of the Airwaves." [6] Are references like these helpful in terms of writing an article about the school? Not very. But do they imply that we are supposed to have heard of the school already? Yes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm down to weak delete, but mostly from those culture quotes and not from the google hits. Almost 100% of book hits are on a single of one book which just list it as I'd assume a direct for something. Since I can't find the book from 1960something or on Amazon I've no idea how to check it. The news hits are 100% local papers, about 90% obituaries and another 5% almost look like criminal bios ((I am not in ANY WAY suggesting that is related to the school)). The last 5% or so? Well, I'll give AGF to them for the most part, except that the article headers seem to be completely unrelated, and since it's behind the evil pay wall I can't check them all at length... but yeah, I'd still give AGF to ones that look dedicated to that topic but I didn't see much/anything. A few have amusing quotes like "since he went to Columbia School of Broadcasting no wonder he didn't make it in the biz", but that's actually a + for keep if added to your quotes. I'll admit, this one is getting complicated... ♪ daTheisen (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN school. No reliable third party sources. Hipocrite (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this doesn't appear to be a true school, or truly notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have very conflicting opinions about this one. I believe the topic is notable, but the article that was nominaed for deletion was an advert for a school that doesn't look notable. Columbia School of Broadcasting is a very well-known name to me due to its pervasive television advertising, as noted in the third-party source that I added to the article. (Note: The main subject of that article is an apparently unrelated school with the same name that was embarrassed to share the name.) I found one source that indicates that the school was based in Los Angeles. It's not clear that the current incarnation of this name (based in Vienna, Virginia, and advertising with very cheesy websites) is related that formerly blanketed the airwaves with its advertising. I found another 3rd-party source that states in passing that the original Columbia School of Broadcasting is defunct. I have a hunch that this small operation in Virginia has acquired the name and is claiming to be the same outfit. I'd like to see a sourced article about the school that existed for several decades (and I'm trying to find sources). --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 15 November 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.