Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Santa Monica: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:57, 1 March 2024

University of Santa Monica

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unaccredited graduate school without (apparently) ability to award degrees. Does not appear to offer much else to show why it meets the notability criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. JMWt (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other than their own website and social media, there is no coverage found for this place/institution. Even sourcing now used is thin, PR items," about us" items and gov't listings. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps there are sources that are not yet accessible. I would not rush to delete the page. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been around since 2008 without any independent sourcing at all and has been labelled as problematic since 2011. Characterizing this as a "rush" is laughable. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Softt Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Oaktree b, and an unfortunately unreliable self-published source (which was the most in-depth thing that turned up when I looked) indicates that there simply will not be independent reliable sources to substitute in support of the claims that this institution makes about itself. A verifiable article cannot be written. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 * '''Delete''': Other than their own website and social media, there is no coverage found for this place/institution. Even sourcing now used is thin, PR items," about us" items and gov't listings.  [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC) <!--VCB Oaktree b-->
 *'''Comment''' Perhaps there are sources that are not yet accessible. I would not rush to delete the page. [[User:Old-AgedKid|Old-AgedKid]] ([[User talk:Old-AgedKid|talk]]) 13:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
+**This article has been around since 2008 without any independent sourcing at all and has been labelled as problematic since 2011.  Characterizing this as a "rush" is laughable. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 :<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' Already PROD'd so Softt Deletion is not an option.<br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|University of Santa Monica]]</noinclude></p>
+*I agree with [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]], and an unfortunately unreliable self-published source (which was the most in-depth thing that turned up when I looked) indicates that there simply will not be independent reliable sources to substitute in support of the claims that this institution makes about itself.  A verifiable article cannot be written.  '''Delete'''.  [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)