Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California School of Law

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. JForget 00:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California School of Law

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

Non-notable, non-accredited online law school. Reads like an ad, POV, no significant third-party coverage (most of the references are links about the VOIP technology they use and the Socratic method). The author LawSchoolHelper (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account. 2 says you, says two 16:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any of the several sources. seems to be more of an advert for a small business than a bonafide WP article. N2e (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep correspondence school with real existence. sufficient for keeping as institution of higher education. Not accreddited, butdoes have state listing. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless whether they're correspondence or brick and mortar, non-accredited schools have no inherent notability, and need to satisfy WP:CORP or WP:ORG. 2 says you, says two 21:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider the accreditation status relevant to whether we should have an article, except that it is necessary to determine whether a non-accredited school actually exists--for a few claimed ones have not. It does apparently actually have students. The Calif Bar Association from its web site has standards for even including them on its list. ` DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what you're telling me, is if I rented a storefront, taught classes on legal procedure out of a used textbook I obtained from Amazon.com, gave out "Juris Doctor participant certificates" to those who showed up and paid the fee and purported myself as the "2 School of Law" I would be eligible for an article? My point is that anyone can set up a school, there needs to be some form of benchmark in absence of formal accreditation, and consensus has stated that this is notability established through independent non-trivial journalism. 2 says you, says two 23:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unaccredited law school. Of the six "sources" given, five of them have nothing to do with the subject. The only citation that even mentions this school is the California Bar list confirming that it is unaccredited. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existence and operation aren't sufficient for notability. We have to go to the sources to see whether we have significant coverage in reliable sources. I can't see that bar being crossed here. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (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.