Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Institute of Media Arts

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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Institute of Media Arts

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

Delete. Recommend deletion due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Zero independent sources have been found to support that this institution actually exists. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT. The stub article reads like a promotional blurb and the facility has absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. I do not really doubt that this small private media arts training facility exists, but in its lacking coverage it fails WP:COMPANY. We are not here to promote them when RS does not even take notice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too recent to have accrued any claim ofrreferences that can assert notability. May even be just a backroom school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 10 January 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.