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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scofield Graduate School[edit]

Unaccredited, no notablity asserted, and about 160 yahoo hits including wikipedia. Fails notablity per WP:CORP and WP:V. (I created the original article.) Arbusto 21:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It may be an unaccredited graduate school, but I am not sure why you feel it fails notability or why it should be deleted. Silensor 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are hundreds of unaccredited schools in California alone. Without notablity or verfiablity, an unaccredited school article will become a bastion for unverified POV. I started the article because I thought the school was legitimate, but it turns out people with ties to it were simply spamming wikipedia. If this were accredited it would not need notable because we know students attend and it is verfiable. Without accreditation we need notablity to take that slack.Arbusto 05:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yahoo and google searches aside, there should be some type of independent source to prove this is notable enough for an unaccredited entity. Nickieee 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per original author's comments. Jcam 00:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not a community institution, which is the main reason for assuming school notability, and the article doesn't mention any specific notability. Gazpacho 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per author comments.--Antorjal 05:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wp:v, author asserted, unaccredited ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks sufficient external coverage in reliable sources to allow a verifiably neutral article. In other words, it's not notable. Guy 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of notablity, and WP:V concerns. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete -AMK152 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:27, 8 September 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.