Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London College of Spirituality


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

London College of Spirituality

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

School is not notable: commercial institution advertised in an article without any coverage. I have not been able to find relevant and independent coverage of the subject; the links on the organization's website are to advertisements, very brief notifications of their opening, and to 'press TV' programs. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —TerriersFan (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article as written is essentially an advertisement, sourced only to the institution's own self-advertising website. In its current form, it deserves to be deleted. However, the article asserts that the "college" has been covered in magazines and on BBC. Also, I got numerous Google hits for it, mostly to websites of astrologers, tarot readers, mind-body therapists, and other purveyors of New-Age/alternative stuff, mostly announcing or describing their activities in connection with this institution. This leads me to think that the entity may be deserving of an article (i.e. "notable"). If the promotional elements of the article were removed and citations to the independent reliable sources were provided, this would deserve to be kept. --Orlady (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment--sure, but again, I have not been able to find anything that wasn't advertising and that I considered to be independent and trustworthy. If someone can provide such articles, it's a different story, obviously--but I do want to make it clear that I did in fact look for such coverage. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - the claims of being well received by the press are not backed up with sourcing. In attempting to find such sourcing, I turned up none.  Barring the appearance of these sources, there is no evidence for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete = All I'm finding in Google for this place are copies of its public relations press release saying that it opened less than a year ago. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not seem to be an academic institution, clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (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.