Deletion of University of Health Sciences Antigua

Comment: There seems to be a train of thought that unaccredited schools / diploma mills do not merit articles. Unfortunately there is not a single shred to stand on that makes accredited schools OK and unaccredited schools forbidden. Either they meet the necessary qualifications, or they don't. The school has been repeatedly covered in the media -- mostly in an unflattering light -- and many of these articles are referenced here from sources that fulfill  and . The sprotect should deal with the vandalism and is never a valid reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: The phrase you quoted above uses the word "some."  I count 5 states which |verifiably restrict or ban the use of the degree.  How can you say it is "totally false
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: By nature accredited insitutions have more verifiable info available, and unaccredited less.  What we need is *substantial* quality and quanity of external coverage.  A lot of refs are listed, but going through them, I don't see the meat.  If this place is notable, we should be able to get a better/clearer picture of its current state of affairs.  JJay, I'm not clear on your point with List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning.  That list is a shameful violation of our |verifiability policy (virtually every entry is "verified" by its ''absence'' from a reliable source). It was created as part of a crusade to save the world from "unaccredited institutions", by those who want Wikipedia to cover comprehensively what no mainstream media has been willing to cover sufficiently.  The claim above, that we don't delete articles due ot edit wars, and using George W. Bush as an example, is misleading.  Edit wars in George W. Bush are settled by an appeal to countless reliable sources (which give not only facts but *analysis* and summary of those facts).  There really isn't a great source to settle disputes in this article.   Also, this simply isn't an encylopedic article.  It is a consumer protection alert.  For instance "''...so it is important to double check the licensing policy of any state you might be interested...''".  A fine piece of advice to be sure, but hardly to purpose of Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)