Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicon Valley 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 keep. It has been confirmed in reliable sources that the university is accredited. Its small size and scarcity of Ghits are not reasons to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley University

Deprodded~~; unclear why.~~ Search on google for "Silicon Valley University" turns up nothing recent. Archive search turns up articles, but top hits are not for the proper name, but instead for the phrase, of which there is no apparent relation to this article. ~~No indication of notability. Should be CSD candidate, except it's a school.~~ Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They appear to be a legitimate school post secondary school. According to their website, attendence meets the criteria for those on student visas, which means the US govt. has recognized them to a reasonable extent. Their website is here: [1] Niteshift36 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe but that's a simple primary source, and while I think that primary schools are given more leeway in terms of press coverage (although that's often easy to find), higher educational institutions need to sink or swim on the reliable sources. But I could be persuaded otherwise on that. In any case, I found no real sources. Shadowjams (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (in current state) -- I can find no evidence of notability. A national accreditation doesn't mean much, and there is a single source (of dubious merit). NiteShift mentions that they are "legitimate". Sadly, Legitimate doesn't mean Notable. McKay (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be something a bit suspicious about this university. Any genuine university in the Western Anglophone world would be expected to have hundreds of references in sources covered by Google Books and thousands in Google News, but this one only has a handful:[2][3]. Most of those hits are coincidental juxtaposition of "Silicon Valley" with "university" rather than references to this institution. I'm not very familiar with US immigration rules, but I know that in the UK there are many unnotable language schools whose students qualify for student visas, so I would imagine that the situation is similar across the pond. Yes, the source in the article has a page and a half of coverage, but if you read through it it says that in 1999 (two years after its founding) it had fifteen students, and that at that time the book was written in 2006 the student body had more than tripled in size. I don't think that having more than 45 students is really a claim of notability, and all of the other Google Books hits that are actually about this institution are one line directory entries. I know that making comparisons to other articles is discouraged at AfD, but I'll ignore that and invite people to compare the notability of this institution with that of Ethiopia's first private university, with over 7,000 students, which an editor considered to be such an uncontoversial deletion candidate as to put a WP:PROD tag on it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the past consensus has been that almost all high schools and colleges are notable. Is this a diploma mill? Bearian (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please link to the discussion where this consensus was established? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Nothing at all in Gnews (the term will throw up many results because Stanford, SJSU, SCU are all Silicon Valley universities - albeit small 'u') except a business wire piece. Just look at their class schedule, highly suspect for a university with an MBA program. Doesn't appear to be anything more than a diploma mill; now for original research - I'm close by, and no one I know even thinks of this place when they talk about SJSU or SCU. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that it has now been shown that it is an accredited institution, I'm changing to Keep. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a degree granting university, but it needs a check about accreditation and so forth. At $1050/graduate course, it seems unrealistically inexpensive, & I see no statement about accreditation nor do I expect that it is. It's just as important to include the unaccredited ones, if they have a real presence. This one seems to. The ones we exclude are the ones that do not actually exist. DGG (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Degree granting" is meaningless without a genuine accreditation: such a degree might just as well be printed on toilet paper for all the good it does.--Calton | Talk 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely, and that's why good information is needed here about each one of them that has any significance at all. DGG (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the article establishes is mere existence -- not good enough, whatever handwaving one does about them being "genuine" -- and the signs are simply horrible: its address is listed as a suite in an office park in Santa Clara [4], and its accreditation agency's approvals are for things like the Golf Academy of America and Fashion Careers College. Without some actual evidence in hand, this is a massive Fail. --Calton | Talk 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the ACICS. They are a US Dept. of Education recognized accrediting agency. That makes their degrees recognized. Here is the link to their entry on the US DoEd webpage: [5]
  - Note - Many are unfamiliar with the ACICS. Their wikipage is at Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools. As many have said, there's nothing all that special about a school that merely meets accreditation. Calton points out what the ACICS accredits. We've already established they are DOJ recognized. Calton has suggested, persuasively, that that accreditation is not all that persuasive. Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure why there's discussion about the quality of this institution; I don't think that's relevant, nor do I think the number of Google hits is relevant. The article has a source from the Harvard University Press that discusses the topic directly in detail per WP:N. We should present the information we can verify and let the reader decide if these guys are legit. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That book is solid third-party publication coverage establishing notability. I added to the article based on information from the book,[6] and there's more information in the book that could be added. If it were not so difficult to distinguish ghits on this school from other ghits on the same search string, I expect that more coverage would be found. --Orlady (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - accredited degree-awarding institution. I have added the accreditation ref. TerriersFan (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so they are, and at the Masters degree level. I said I'd be surprised, and so I am. DGG (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a little uncomfortable with only one real source that hints at notability. The other sources affirm the accreditation, but not the notability; since when has simple compliance with regulations been a claim to notability? There is one source here from the book (which is relevant and useful), a link to the school's own web page, and another that's shows it's accredited. That's one notability hit. So while that's good, I don't think it's right to proclaim the issue over. Calton's point is exactly right: this sort of thing needs to be notable; accreditation is not enough (my barber doesn't need to have his own wikipedia page). Shadowjams (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Educational accreditation is not merely complying with regulations -- it's not the same thing as a state license (although state licensing is usually a prerequisite to accreditation). Accreditation typically requires that the institution join the accrediting organization and successfully complete a review by a committee consisting of representatives of other educational institutions accredited by that organization. The reviews usually examine things like finances, academic offerings, and faculty credentials. There's no arguing that this school's accreditor (Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools) is not among the most highly respected accreditors, but it is a legitimate recognized accrediting organization. The fact that SIU is accredited by that group helps to confirm that the university is for real and has existed for some period of time. SIU also is listed in a number of directories of educational institutions, which doesn't provide much in the way of WP:RS sourcing for an article, but does help to confirm that it's a bona fide educational institution. In my experience, it's often difficult to find online third-party sources for small colleges and universities that don't have athletic teams. The fact that this school's name is a string that appears in so many non-relevant search results compounds that problem. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you say except for the last part: it's not that much more difficult to find reliable sources for schools without an athletic team. There are plenty of liberal arts colleges that easily meet this test. I realize this is a small school, but given that fact, its accreditation is less important and we should rely more on other WP:RS. Accreditation is a necessary but not sufficient cause for its notability. Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's "small" and there's "smaller" and "smallest." I have the impression that this school has fewer than 100 students -- that's in the "smallest" category, and a school that small isn't likely to get much news media attention. I've squandered a lot of time looking for sources for articles about educational institutions I had never heard of (for example, many bible colleges), and I've found that there is little online coverage of many small schools. They are listed in directories, and they may be listed on some ratings sites, and they get news coverage only when they do something to get on the sports pages -- like dropping varsity football. By virtue of being discussed in that one book, this school actually has more third-party documentation than a bunch of other apparently legitimate schools I've researched. --Orlady (talk) 11:37, 31 July 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.