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. John254 03:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Health Sciences Antigua[edit]

University of Health Sciences Antigua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an unaccredited school which has been described as a diploma mill. It was started as a rather more flattering article by User:DrGladwin, a student there. Apparently it has been vandalised by students numerous times, and Dr Gladwin has asked for help in bringing it to AfD. The more cynical among you may feel that this has more to do with the cited facts regarding its academic status than with the actual vandalism. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, in the spirit of WP:AGF, here it is. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Well, my reason for having this article deleted is very well put by Guy. There is more to arguments than just proving facts by copying and pasting links from other websites. That only works in some cases, specifically not in this one. This article has been the center of edit wars and bitterness, which will never end. Personally, I feel working on this article is a waste of time for everyone. There are other important articles where we can contribute our time. The sprotect message on the article header doesn't look pretty either. It was all my fault to start this article; I didn't know it would lead to this. So please, I humbly request it to be deleted. Thanks. DrGladwin 00:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars or vandalism are never a reason to delete an article. George Bush would have gone a long time ago if that was the case. Viridae^Talk 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This one is iffy. That is has been blacklisted by several states and people have been prosecuted trying to use the their degrees makes it worthy of inclusion I think. Google turned up 12500 results, most of them refering to people who held a degree from there - and it does appear to be a diploma mill - lots of people turning up with multiple degrees including one of these. Viridae^Talk 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Viridae, you make a good point, but the thing is, this school is no longer a diplima mill, it was once in the late 80s and early 90s. Most of the websites that claim to prove it a diploma mill are "correct," but technically, they are outdated. People are treating those websites as reliable sources, which apparently, is absurd. This is 2006 and I'm a student here, and things have changed a lot. My point is, this article is has nothing meaningful to contribute. If you still want to look at it the way it was in the 80s and 90s, go ahead, keep the article. The only problem is, there are no websites that look at present day UHSA. As a side note, there are numerous other medical schools in the region, and none of them have Wiki articles. DrGladwin 00:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are more than welcome to contribute to WP and write the articles on the other schools. :-) Leuko 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Speedy Keep The school is notable - 1) multiple WP:RS on it, 2) it is a post-graduate institution and inherently notable per the proposed WP:SCHOOLS. Per a comment here, the nom's reason for requesting deletion of the article is that "The UHSA students are upset, the admins are upset, everyone is upset" -- Evidently a WP:COI. How are official state websites that say it is a violation of the law to attempt to use the degree in that state not a WP:RS? Leuko 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Leuko, the state websites are true, but from their experience with UHSA in the 80s and 90s. And when you say, "UHSA is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. It is blacklisted by some US states," that is totally false. For example, UHSA is fully recognized in Georgia, Arizona, etc., provided that students have received their degree through traditional classroom instruction - like I'm doing. My point is, this article has nothing meaningful to contribute. People who wish to know about UHSA can call the school and talk to its students. I don't understand the point of posting info that is inaccurate and only instigates people. DrGladwin 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The phrase you quoted above uses the word "some." I count 5 states which verifiably restrict or ban the use of the degree. How can you say it is "totally false?" Leuko 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the states are or are not justified in their policies is frankly irrelevant to whether or not we should have a Wikipedia article on the topic. JoshuaZ 05:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says, "UHSA is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body," and that is totally wrong. I no longer want to debate the article as I've done enough of it and I'm tired of it. And I'm responsible for all this; I shouldn't have written this useless article in the first place. It has only lead to vandalism. DrGladwin 01:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be a train of thought that unaccredited schools / diploma mills do not merit articles. Unfortunately there is not a single shred to stand on that makes accredited schools OK and unaccredited schools forbidden. Either they meet the necessary qualifications, or they don't. The school has been repeatedly covered in the media -- mostly in an unflattering light -- and many of these articles are referenced here from sources that fulfill WP:RS and WP:V. The sprotect should deal with the vandalism and is never a valid reason for deletion. Alansohn 03:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Fully qualifies for inclusion based on the references. Unaccredited schools and diploma mills have long been considered highly "notable" at wikipedia judging by our extensive coverage of the topic such as the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, which includes this school. We need more articles on these institutions, not less. --JJay 03:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alansohn and JJay, while I agree with your point, you're relying too much on other outdated websites. UHSA sure has had it's bad years, and all this article is doing is scraping those wounds open. Presently, UHSA staff and students (like me) are working very hard improve our reputation. I agree with Rob's point: "accredited insitutions have more verifiable info available, and unaccredited less." Here's where the problem lies - there isn't much info about UHSA. I must tell you it has had graduates that were blacklisted and banned from practicing in some states, on the other hand, it has had grads doing residency at the University of Chicago Hospitals (best in the country). Presently, we have a team of grads getting into the best residencies across the US, and trust me, I'm headed into that direction. It would be best to wait till ~2010 and see where UHSA is headed; as for now, it would be best to delete this article. DrGladwin 05:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gladwin, I sympathize with your position and the last thing I want to see is a school be unfairly stigmatized on wikipedia by a bunch of POV warriors who have some hate filled agenda to push. But why can't we do a balanced article on this medical school? If its grads are doing residencies in major teaching hospitals, and thus hold roles of authority in local communities in numerous countries, I think the institution merits inclusion in wikipedia. The accreditation issue - past and present - need to be clarified. You have raised substantive concerns in that regard. But I think editing and more sources will lead to a more balanced and updated overview. In the meantime, I don't see any grounds for deletion. --JJay 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete By nature accredited insitutions have more verifiable info available, and unaccredited less. What we need is *substantial* quality and quanity of external coverage. A lot of refs are listed, but going through them, I don't see the meat. If this place is notable, we should be able to get a better/clearer picture of its current state of affairs. JJay, I'm not clear on your point with List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. That list is a shameful violation of our verifiability policy (virtually every entry is "verified" by its absence from a reliable source). It was created as part of a crusade to save the world from "unaccredited institutions", by those who want Wikipedia to cover comprehensively what no mainstream media has been willing to cover sufficiently. The claim above, that we don't delete articles due ot edit wars, and using George W. Bush as an example, is misleading. Edit wars in George W. Bush are settled by an appeal to countless reliable sources (which give not only facts but *analysis* and summary of those facts). There really isn't a great source to settle disputes in this article. Also, this simply isn't an encylopedic article. It is a consumer protection alert. For instance "...so it is important to double check the licensing policy of any state you might be interested...". A fine piece of advice to be sure, but hardly to purpose of Wikipedia. --Rob 04:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rob, I agree with you that the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning is a shameful violation of numerous wikipedia core policies including WP:V and WP:NOR. However, it also was a unanimous keep on AfD [1], thereby demonstrating the undeniable "notability" of the subject for the wikipedia community. The only way that the list can adhere to core policies is to do articles on all the underlying institutions. If the institutions lack the verifiability for an article thay should not be on the list. --JJay 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's the unaccredited/diploma mill status of this article that (in this case) actually provides it's notability. There is enough here to pass this article using both the WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3 benchmarks. Trusilver 08:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even if the school has changed and improved, its past makes it notable. If there are reliable sources that verify this change (they do not have to be found on "websites" -- you can cite printed matter as well), by all means, add that information to the article. But the school's changes do not make its past status, and criticism of same, less noteworthy. Shimeru 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Schools that have issues such as being called a substandard education (Kansas Court) and banned in major states like California,Texas would make it newsworthy. If we can see some improvements (such as dropping the infamous online medical school programs, advanced status for non-medical school training like chiropractic/nursing school/etc. it possibly would be like other Carib schools but I have seen no documentation that it is attempting to meet the norms of US medical schools on issues such as distance education, admission standards,etc.Azskeptic 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:46, 22 November 2006
• Keep also per the above comments Albatross2147 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the more true information there is out there on unaccredited degree mills the easier it is to spot fakers who claim to have studied at them. Let's uncover all of the damn places. Pete Fenelon 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Helping people spot "fakers" and uncovering all of the "damn" places is an excellent goal, and legitimate mission of *other* web sites. However, you may not use Wikipedia for this mission of yours. Wikipedia already has a mission. It is to write an encyclopedia, based on verifiable information. It is a repository of previously established knowledge. It excludes *all* original research. Our original research policy effectively prohibits us from "uncovering" anything. Rather, we discuss, summarize, and explain what others have already discovered, exposed, and published (with sufficient depth and diversity in the coverage). --Rob 01:54, 25 November 2006 (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.