User talk:Arturvfrolov

Speedy deletion nomination of Cambridge corporate university

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Cambridge corporate university requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Arturvfrolov, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Arturvfrolov! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cambridge Corporate University

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cambridge Corporate University, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be a clear copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

  If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JohnCD (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for advertising

Assertion of permission to use copyright text is not enough; a formal copyright release is required, as explained at WP:Donating copyrighted materials; but there would be no point in making a copyright release for this material, which is completely unsuitable: not an encyclopedia entry but an advertisement, full of glowing PR-speak. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion of any kind. JohnCD (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Since it seems from this that you are connected with CCU, you have, from Wikipedia's point of view, a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and should carefully read that page and the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Note in particular that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use ("Paid contributions without disclosure" under section 4), and in some jurisdictions by laws against covert advertising, to disclose your interest in any edits where you have a COI. JohnCD (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Advice

If you have not yet read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, please read it now. You will see that, because of your conflict of interest, you should not be editing directly about CCU, but may submit a draft for review by an uninvolved user. I have moved the page to Draft:Cambridge Corporate University where you can work on it.

It would not be acceptable at present because Wikipedia's inclusion criterion, called Wikipedia:Notability requires references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Youtube, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant or important enough to write substantial comment about? See also Wikipedia:Notability (summary) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Read again section 7 "Sources, sources, sources" under "Advice" in the conflict of interest guide.

I removed the statement "Its history, model and influence made it one of the most innovative universities in the world." Puffery like that should not be included unless cited to a reliable, published source independent of the university or its agents. Check out the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, summarised as "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source".

There is general advice about writing acceptable articles at WP:Your first article.

I remind you again that you are required to declare your interest or connection with CCU. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my talk page

The most important thing missing, as I have explained above, is references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish Wikipedia:Notability. The statements about accreditation and membership of the Swiss Quality Education Institute also need verification from reliable sources; and to comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use (which you accept if you edit here) you need to declare what is your relationship with CCU. JohnCD (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

More replies

• Disclosure: see this link. Perhaps the simplest way is to post a statement on your user page User:Arturvfrolov.
• Authority control: see Wikipedia:Authority control; but perhaps you meant just how to make a reference by linking to a website, in which case see Help:Referencing for beginners.

If you have more questions, you can ask them below here, so as to keep the conversation in one place. I will watch this talk page. JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the "Unsubmitted draft" template at the top. Please don't remove that: it needs to be there to show the status of the page. The way to submit the article for review, when it is ready, is to click the green "submit" button. I also removed another piece of puffery: "Members of the BOT at CCU are world recognized figures in their specialized areas of expertise and thought leaders who change the world every day." That claim would require a reliable, published source independent of the CCU. JohnCD (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Restored Draft

I cannot find the restored draft mentioned in the message above. Where can this draft be found?
Regarding Authority Control, how can the Cambridge Corporate University page in Wikipedia get these parameters and templates of ISNI, VIAF, etc?

The draft is still at Draft:Cambridge Corporate University

ISNI, VIAF, etc are for linking to entries that already exist in various catalogues and databases. I am not sure how VIAF or ISNI would apply to a corporate body; as far as I know they are used to identify people unambiguously. GND is one that seems perhaps to apply to companies too. If CCU has a GND entry, say number 118529579, then you would put {{Authority control|GND=118529579}} in the article after the "External links" section, and it would serve to distinguish CCU from any other institution that have the same name. (That number actually denotes Albert Einstein). You will have to ask the authorities at CCU whether it has entries in any of these databases.

There is one more aspect of Wikipedia that I think I should explain, where it differs from most other websites. It is not a "noticeboard" site like Facebook where people and organizations tell the world about themselves. Nobody "owns" a Wikipedia article, not its first author and certainly not its subject. If an article about CCU is accepted, others can and will edit it and, while you can make suggestions on the talk page which will be considered, you will not be able to insist on your preferred version. If CCU wants an article about itself which it can control, this is not the site for it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Respond

Yes, I think it was good that you explained one of the main purposes and missions of Wikipedia, thank you also for it. Of course, there is no such a goal to advertise CCU. Actually, I started to create an article with a goal to have a clear understanding and information, that can be easily found by anyone and people can read about it as an independent source of information, otherwise there will be no sense to put the same information as it's on the official website. And I think, that you actually helped me to get it faster. Will strive to do the article in the best way of an independent and reliable source of information, so people can also know about existence of CCU. I appreciate your support and hope we can collaborate on this matter further to improve both sides.

Declaration of the relationship

Hello,

Sent link "https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure" by you recently has an empty page there.
Can you please clarify about declaration, what and where should I write.

Sorry, the correct link is meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure. See the section "How should I disclose paid contributions in my user page?". I suggest that you write on your user page User:Arturvfrolov a statement that you are editing on behalf of the University as part of your employment with them (if that is the situation). JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cambridge Corporate University (October 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cambridge Corporate University and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Accreditation

Yes, the article can be posted without accreditation information, but in that case someone may edit it to make clear that the University is not accredited, or at least that no reliable source has been provided to show that it is.

However, as I explained above, the article will not be accepted without references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish Wikipedia:Notability. That is why it has been declined when you submitted it today: it has no references except its own website and a single directory entry. See Wikipedia:Notability (summary) for an idea of what is necessary. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, the directory entry - University Directory Worldwide, appears to be an advertorial site. Audit Guy (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Announcement of the Cambridge Corporate University

Hello, Regarding Notability, there is a newspaper which was released under governmental control of the Canton and there are founders and a major of the Canton on the photo 1) http://cambridgecu.ch/sites/default/files/Leuk%20Paper-page-001.jpg; This is an official document from the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property of the official Logotype registration 2) http://cambridgecu.ch/sites/default/files/CambridgeLogoRegistiration.jpg
Please, give a feedback if this information is relevant and can be used in the article to prove the mentioned words.

The Walliser Bote extract helps, somewhat, but it is over ten years old and is not about CCU but about a predecessor organization, the Cambridge Philosophy Institute. The second does not help with notability: it shows only that yet another organization, the "Cambridge Philosophy College" of 60 Lombard St, London, has registered a crest. Connection with "Cambridge Corporate University" of Switzerland is not clear. (Where is CCU's actual campus? I cannot make that out from the website).

On talk pages (but not in articles) please sign your comments by ending them with a group of four "tilde" characters ~~~~, which the system will convert to a signature with your username and the time and date, like this: JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Declaration and notability

Hello dear John,

1. Please see my talk page where I mention the relationship as declaration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arturvfrolov. Is it what's needed to declare?
2. Actual campus is located in Lucerne, Switzerland. It is both campus and headquarters of the CCU. The university provides education for executives all over the World in 21 countries.
And it is mostly distance learning, because many people are simply too busy to come for classes every week. I will write it afterwards in the article with strong references so it can be actually proved.
Regarding former names, Cambridge Philosophy Institute (abbr. CPI - mother company) and Cambridge Philosophy College are former names of the Cambridge Corporate University.
The lawyer is actually updating the public information and university has got an accreditation document with no expiry date on it regardless of the age, 10 or more years.

Please, can the current article be posted as an initial one, and soon by the time I am going to improve it, following all Wikipedia's rules. I will personally ask to review it each time I edit it.
Sincerely,
Artur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturvfrolov (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 October 2015

Declaration of interest on your user page - that's fine.

Accreditation: what is the accrediting organization? I do not find CCU in this OAQ list or this EDUQUA list.

Notability: no, the draft cannot be accepted as an article without independent references to demonstrate WP:Notability, as I have explained above. You may continue to edit the draft, and re-submit it for review when notability is shown.

JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, regarding relationship between Cambridge Philosophy Institute and Cambridge Corporate University: Cambridge Philosophy Institute (abbr. CPI) is the official academic body offers doctoral programs at the University. (Please, see the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cambridge_Corporate_University#cite_note-5). Secondly, an educational institution hasn't to be always accredited by a third party in Switzerland, like what you mentioned: this OAQ list or this EDUQUA list. The Cambridge Philosophy Institute (as a body of Cambridge Corporate University) was accredited by a state of Valais in Switzerland, and on the picture of the state newspaper the heads of the CCU are standing next to the Mayer of the city (Please, see the link: http://cambridgecu.ch/sites/default/files/Leuk%20Paper-page-001.jpg). Governmental accreditation is much stronger than accreditation of a third party like was mentioned above. It releases once and with no expiry date on it. Regarding ACC accreditation and Swiss Quality Education Institute I currently removed these parts. If you need documents from the UK and the US, where it's written about the CCU, I will request this info as well. What is else wrong about the article? Artur V. Frolov (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Arturvfrolov Please sign off by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of all your comments. Audit Guy (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What the article still needs is evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish WP:Notability. Showing that a predecessor organization has a crest, or that the CCU appears in a list, is not enough, nor is a local newspaper report from eleven years ago saying that another predecessor organization was going to rent some premises. We need substantial comment from independent sources about CCU itself.

I asked about the ACC Accreditation Commission and the Swiss Quality Education Institute because the the website says CCU is "fully accredited" by the first, and is a "standing member" of the second, but I can't find out about them: searches for them ACC, SQEI just seem to lead back to CCU. If an article is accepted, someone will likely add an "Accreditation" section, which is important for any higher education institute, but what is put there will need independent verification. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cambridge Corporate University (October 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cambridge Corporate University and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cambridge Corporate University (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cambridge Corporate University and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my talk page

I will not restore the last draft, as I see it was a deleted as a copyright violation - probably too close to the University's website. You are welcome to start again at Draft:Cambridge Corporate University. I suggest that, first, you read down all the advice higher up this page. The most important thing that has been lacking so far is references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish Wikipedia:Notability. I stress that the coverage needs to be significant, and about the University itself, not about its staff or other related matters like the crest of a predecessor institution. See also WP:Notability (summary).

Also, the accreditation status of the University needs to be explained, with references for verification. The last reviewer wrote:

"As an absolute minimum, there needs to be material from 3rd party sources about the extent to which this university is accredited, and recognized by outside bodies. That it is legally entitled to operate in Switzerland is not academic accreditation. Without it, this is just an advertisement for a unaccredited institute claiming to be a university."

Take care to avoid puffery and write in a neutral tone. There is good advice at Wikipedia:College and university article advice. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Linking to scans, and accreditation

You could provide links to scans, as you did here. That is less satisfactory than a direct link, (a) because with Photoshop and word-processing programs it would not be hard to falsify a scan, and (b) because the point of requiring reference to a published source is that the reader should, in principle, be able to check the source of Wikipedia's facts. If the scan shows the name of the newspaper and the date of the issue, that would enable a check to be made. I am not sure about copyright considerations, but if the scan is on your website, not ours, that is your problem.

Registration by the cantonal authorities is a different thing from accreditation which certifies the academic standards. Accreditation is meaningful only if the accreditation authority is itself known and trusted. The CCU website says that it is "fully accredited by the international ACC accreditation commission", but a Google search for that returns only links about CCU. That statement is not useful without a link to ACC's certification, independent of CCU, and information about ACC itself, why it is independent and why it should be trusted.

With regard to notability, I really cannot add to what has already been explained above, and the pages WP:Notability, WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:Notability (summary).

You can reply below here: let us keep this conversation on your talk page, so that it is all in one place. JohnCD (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)