Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SL2College

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. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SL2College

[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)

Fails WP:GNG; advertisement GloriaJFM (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I am not seeing anything that suggests any notability at all. What I do see is an article written just like what their website could be written like, or any other promotional material. I am surprised it was created over a decade ago. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find any RIS at all. Mccapra (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this probably could have been dealt with as a PROD. It clearly is clearly promoting/advertising the organization - there is no supporting/meaningful coverage in any independent secondary sources and it is questionable as whether the organization exists anymore. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. ✗plicit 13:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to the lack of notability. I'm tempted to go with procedural keep, but there's already enough "votes" in one direction to warrant seeing the AfD through. Otherwise, it would likely just be kept to needlessly be sent through the process again with the same outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I strongly believe it should be deleted because reliable sources are week and this article written just for advertisement purpose. Fails GNG.TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2021 (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.