Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenger School
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Challenger School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This organization is not a school per se, but a company offering education for profit in several locations across the country. I feel it should be considered as a business and not subject to the typical exemption for a school. Does not meet WP:GNG as a news search only turned up one match and that was a description of scheduling differences between Challenger and the local public school. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Additionally, the article is highly promotional. If this had been a business selling Foo, we would have axed it ages ago! Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are no reliable sources present or found by my search and, as noted by the nominator, this is a private company, not a school. Ubelowme U Me 01:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have found multiple passing mentions of the school(s), but none that pass WP:ROUTINE. Insufficient reliable sources found that indicate the the subject of this article has received significant coverage as required by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2012 (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.