Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Thinking

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

School of Thinking[edit]

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

Apparently promotional split article from article on author(s). The extraordinary claim for the number of students needs direct citation to be considered. DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I removed the un-referenced statement about the number of students as such strong claims clearly need to be backed up by sources. Sources that I was unable to locate. The article is clearly promotional and I suggest ought be speedily deleted accordingly. AlanS^talk 13:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like spam Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there were multiple sentences of advertising about this school on the page. i removed those in my edit on September 30. i have deleted this content before so i think the could page be watched from spam additions.Diem dior shar (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)'Keep but watch from spam additionsDiem dior shar (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 2 October 2014 (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) 20:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious spam is obvious. I just took a spin through the Australian Google, and couldn't find a single news source. Why was this relisted, when the only objection came from a SPA? Nha Trang 20:42, 17 October 2014 (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.