Talk:Oregon Office of Degree Authorization
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notability?
editReliable sources anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- The RS (Oregon Student Access Commission) is out there, but merging this into the Oregon Student Access Commission article; which, in turn, should be merged into the Oregon Department of Education material will resolve stub and notability issues. --S. Rich (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)23:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merger would be a bad idea, for at least two reasons: (1) It would wreak havoc on the numerous backlinks to this article. (2) A reorganization that is occurring 5 months from now will take ODA out of the Oregon Student Access Commission and out of the Department of Education. Anyway, I've added a lot of new material and source citations to this article. --Orlady (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Court case the ODA lost. Missing from article?
editIt seems that the ODA lost a court case against someone with an unaccredited degree and was forced to list thier University as "legal for use in Oregon" as a result. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/08/24/0335975.pdf It is surprising that this has managed to escape the article, especially when the ODA is bandied about so often on matters of legitimacy of schools. I notice that someone tried to mention this in the past, but it appears to have been whitewashed. Surely it is in the best interests of the public at large to know about this controversy and loss of a court case, given the credibility that the ODA is often afforded on wikipedia?Satinmaster (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable secondary source discussing the court case? If not, the only logical conclusion is the court case isn't significant for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)