Deletion of Canadian Business College (2nd nomination)

Comment: fails , non-noteble, spammy written like a promotional brochure with program details. '''salt''' it since it is 3rd creation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Totally |spammy. Arguments such as "the article is referenced" demonstrates some editors haven't a clue how GNG and  work since not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. We're after quality references, not quantity. Die to a lack of quality references (with |"Independent Content"), topic totally fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPIP||WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: The first argument that the nominator makes is that it is {{tq|"spammy"}} - but  and next the nominator tries to use low page views as a reason for delete. Please see  for exactly why the nominator's argument is wrong. The third argument the nominator advances is basically . the nominator says {{tq|"...it's hung around as a blight on Wikipedia for years. It's time to put the article to rest."  "...It's time to put this article out of its misery before it attracts even more spammy content.}} Note: The first AfD was nearly a  keep. the college is notable and the article is referenced. The nominator makes all the wrong arguments. Deleting the article does not serve our readers  
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:POPULARPAGE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:SNOW||WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: I'd say. While it's received some press coverage, much of it is related to outine|routine coverage. As well, the other sources are predominantly the subject's website (that is, the college) or reports from regulators. A '''question''':  as a matter of practice, do we list ''all'' for-profit, privately accredited career colleges
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)