Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open University of Switzerland

Open University of Switzerland

Open University of Switzerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable institution -- fails WP:GNG. Article (which is advert-like) is sourced only to the institution's website and an advertising website with no evidence of credibility. Google search turned up a couple more advertisements, but no credible independent sources. Note: Websearching is complicated by fact that "Open University" and "Switzerland" occur together rather often in connection with other unrelated topics. Orlady (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Not notoble per WP:ORG. Does not have independent reliable sources. Appears more like an advertisement. Audit Guy (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep This article is a problem. It is usually relatively easy to tell if conventional universities have a real existence. It can be much more difficult for an purely online university, There are a number of rather dubious physical as well as online institutions in Switzerland, presumably because of some legal loophole. The licensing by the Swiss government is a business license, not an educational accreditation, The listing by the various professional organizations is sufficiently convincing to me to indicate real existence. I notice the description on the university's web page, offering a curriculum leading to both a MBA and a doctorate in a single year. By the usual standards, this would represent a diploma mill, but there are fewer standards in online education, where I suppose it is conceivable that an individual might mange to do that. . The number of students is claimed, not proven; ditto for faculty. There seems to be no firm evidence anyone has ever completed any of its programs. .

I can understand our reluctance to cover schools like this as if they were conventional colleges, or reputable nonconventional ones. If kept, perhaps the best thing to do is to add some more of the information from their web site. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: The only source cited to indicate that this entity is licensed in Switzerland is the entity's own website. The fact that an entity has a website on which it posts a claim of government recognition establishes neither notability nor credibility. --Orlady (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

following the links there, the recognition such as it is, as well as the listing on the subject-oriented sites, seems to be real enough--it is also meaningless academically. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, the "Open University" website does link to a government website where the corporate entity A.B.M.S. Education Group (not "Open University of Switzerland") is listed as a registered business (along with numerous other business entities, like Absolut Balance Pilates Fitness Studio) and where a laudatory "description" (obviously written by the A.B.M.S. Education Group) is reproduced. Appearance on a list of registered businesses is nothing near the kind of independent coverage needed to meet the general notability guideline, much less an indication that this is a "university" that meets the standards of WP:ORG. --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If kept, this article would look like an attempt at using Wikipedia as an avenue for advertising. Audit Guy (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This website is a business register by the municipality of Zug to which any local business can submit their own entry. This is meaningless in terms of notability.  Sandstein  19:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Weak delete I think the only question is whether this is a notable diploma mill or a non-notable diploma mill. But it clearly is not a serious or respected institution. A serious university whose courses are in English would not have an FAQ written in broken English. Universities that offer a one-year dual MBA/PhD program are not serious especially if they have an FAQ that contradicts this explicitly. Pichpich (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I consider to be a nonnotable diploma mill, like the vast majority of red-linked entities listed on List of unaccredited institutions of higher education (and many more that advertise themselves on the Internet, but don't appear on that list). The reason this institution doesn't appear on that list yet is that we don't even have a reliable source to affirmatively state that it lacks accreditation/approval/authorization. --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. The article contains no reliable third-party coverage as required by WP:GNG. Anything can call itself a "university" in Switzerland, because of virtually non-existent regulation particularly in certain cantons including Zug. This is an online education business like very many others and with no apparent distinguishing features. The art. 24 VZAE registration it claims to have is a routine registration required for acceptance as a school for certain bureaucratic purposes related to the admission of foreign students to Switzerland, but no indication of any importance, and little or no indication of quality. I can't imagine why a purely online school would even need such a registration, except to suggest an official status it hasn't got. Its "registration number" is its commerce register number, required by any Swiss business.  Sandstein  20:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with DDG that this article is problematic and that it's credibility is questionable, however, I must fall into the delete camp as there is no solid reference for it being an accredited educational institution and it fails to meet the other guidelines if looked at in terms of WP:SIGCOV or WP:ORG. Mkdw^talk 21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep I don't agree with what you said about manythings, lets start with diploma mill, I can give you a link where you can get an MBA from Manchester Metropolitan University or University of university of derby and many other Universities in 5-6 months and without Bachelor degree, are you interested to see? so an MBA or DBA in one year is not a diploma Mill, and regarding the Name Open University of Switzerland, its 100% legal by Swiss law and I asked a Prof. in Law from Zurich and he said its 100% legal and he is teaching in Zurich University I don't want mention his name her, but can mention if needed. ABMS is officially registered to be a teaching Institute (please check www.zefix.admin.ch). so I don't see any reason for delete, otherwise we must delete half of the universities in Europe because they offer 6 months MBA or 1 year DBA. --Markos200 (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: It is inconceivable that any institution with recognized accreditation will grant both a MBA and DBA degree in one year. A typical DBA doctorate degree alone will take anywhere between 2 - 4 years to complete for full and part-time studies, and this includes distance learning programs. In any event this article entry does not have any verifiable independent sources for it to be kept. Audit Guy (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Zefix.admin.ch is the Swiss commerce register. All corporations must register there, and they can register whatever they want as their purpose, including teaching. This register entry is essentially self-published and of no relevance concerning notability. Besides, the register entry tells us that there is only one person associated with this corporation, a Syrian national, and that the corporation has only the legal minimum capital of CHF (=USD) 20.000, all of which aren't exactly clear signs of notability. The other arguments by Markos200, whose edits are only to articles about Swiss private teaching businesses of sometimes questionable notability, do not address the problems raised in this discussion.  Sandstein  13:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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.