Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future College Prep


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Future College Prep

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

School that fails GNG. Cannot find any sources other than MaxPrep or other similar high school athlete ranking services; no second party reliable coverage on the school itself. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (per DEL8). Not only is there no coverage, but a simple Google search using the school's name and founder's name given in the article indicates that it's a sole proprietorship run out of an unmarked warehouse. Thus, the article arguably qualifies for speedy deletion under both A7 (no credible claim of significance and not actually a school) and G11 (unambiguous advertising). Rebb  ing  22:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and Rebbing. Cubbie15fan (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete if a school in the United States gets this little verifiable coverage in independent sources, there is no possible way for it to meet our inclusion standards. The outcome of the RfC urged us to look for sources and consider the possibility of offline sources. I've done that, and given the context here, can't find a justifiable reason to !vote keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article does not have enough content to keep. In fact this really isn't an article, its more like a sentence. Unless someone can add a lot more information and resources, this is not worth keeping. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree this is below the standard for even verification.  DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep? What about these sources:  USA Today High School Sports Kansas City Star (The_Kansas_City_Star)  Gazette Newspapers (appears to be small paper in Long Beach), so no great RS in itself, but appears to be indep. and not self-pub..  Am I missing something?  Sorry if I am unfamiliar with the requirements for WP:NSPORT. It appears to be a real team; whether it is  notable is another question... --David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2017 (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.