Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian College of English Language

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. Meeting WP:V is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to keep an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian College of English Language

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

I considered PROD, but because it is an institution which provides education, I think this would benefit from a full discussion. While this institution clearly exists, there is little to no discussion of it in reliable sources. If stripped of the detailed, near-advertorial program information, the article would be a sentence long. The only sources I could find were [1] (a single paragraph buried deep in the article) and [2] (an interview with the owner). In my opinion that simply isn't enough coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. I know normally educational institutions are given a pass but I feel that because this one is for-profit, it (and others like it) should be given more scrutiny. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced except primary sources. Unclear if this is a high school, private supplementary classes school, or such. In either case, fails WP:GNG - no indication of importance, etc. Likely spam/yellow pages type of an entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not a high school, it's private supplementary English classes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:V is satisfies here in using this, this, this and this. Nothing else is needed to question its accuracy. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Link 1: already mentioned in my nom, single paragraph buried in a piece clearly about something else. Link 2: same as link 3, which I assume is an error. That piece also has the same author as link 4, which per the GNG makes it count as a single source: multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Available sources from online searches consist of passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 25 August 2017 (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.