Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Santa Monica

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

University of Santa Monica

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

University of Santa Monica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unaccredited graduate school without (apparently) ability to award degrees. Does not appear to offer much else to show why it meets the notability criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. JMWt (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Other than their own website and social media, there is no coverage found for this place/institution. Even sourcing now used is thin, PR items," about us" items and gov't listings. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps there are sources that are not yet accessible. I would not rush to delete the page. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • This article has been around since 2008 without any independent sourcing at all and has been labelled as problematic since 2011. Characterizing this as a "rush" is laughable. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Softt Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Oaktree b, and an unfortunately unreliable self-published source (which was the most in-depth thing that turned up when I looked) indicates that there simply will not be independent reliable sources to substitute in support of the claims that this institution makes about itself. A verifiable article cannot be written. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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.