Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premier Education Group


 * 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   keep. seem to be the consensus after two relistings  DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Premier Education Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  19:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)




 * Week Keep - Article meets WP:GNG, per:
 * Walker, David (October 19, 2010). "$3.6M in Debt, Photo School President Faces Fraud Charges." PDN Photo District News.
 * Fry, Chris (March 18, 2011). "Business School Was a Rip, 37 Students Say." Courthouse News Service.
 * Ianier, Brian (March 24, 2011). "Thirty-seven former students sue Harris School of Business in Linwood over accreditations." Pressofatlanticcity.com.
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment More sources needed to keep this article, but it is important for Wikipedia readers to learn about controversies about for-profit educational institutions.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources found to prove it gets coverage. 32 results from Google news archive to sort through for more.   D r e a m Focus  15:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject has clearly received coverage, but a handful of references in no way implies "significant coverage" which is what is actually required by WP:GNG. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG, more sources have been found and can be incorporated into the article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources available to meet WP:GNG. There is the additional factor that such umbrella groups are convenient repositories for information on their otherwise nn schools. TerriersFan (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2011 (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.