Deletion of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

Comment: Of the 31 citations, 5 are self published (one is listed twice), 10 make no mention of the college, and 13 are lists (2 are listed twice). Of the remaining 3 references, one is a passing mention in an article about another college, one is a BBC article about the college and the third I am unable to access. There is only any depth of coverage in at most two of the references, and 10 of them make no mention of the college, but are being used to support  within the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I disagree when you say "neutral" way. For example, the article on Caribbean Medical University|Caribbean Medical University is clearly biased. Sure, there is no tangible | supporting its attempt to get accredited, but so what? Visit the school campus or call the administration and see what I mean. These articles reflect nothing but a bunch of | from external websites posted by different people supporting or opposing certain claims. In simple terms, it's like fighting a court case. In the end, there is nothing meaningful and informative. The editor with the most |, fancier editing programs, and more administrators on their side always seems to win
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: From  ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail", merely appearing in a list of institutions is '''not significant coverage.''' The majority of references for these institutions are merely that, the institution appearing in a list of similar institutions
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: When you take two referenced facts, and combine them to draw a conclusion, that's . Combining the presence or absence of the institution in list a on website A with the wording of rule b on website B to determine fact C is therefore 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:OR)

Comment: With over 30 citations and mentions in , this school most certainly meets .  Any other perceived issues are not a rationale for deletion, and can be worked out on the article's talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: The inclusion of the school in various lists in various countries that state it is not accredited, not eligible for licensure, etc, is significant coverage since these are official state agencies. As far as , the article only contains cited facts written in a neutral way.  For example, the article states (supported by ref) that the school is not listed on the DFES Register.  In addition it states that no student will be granted a visa if studying at a college not listed on the register. Both are true facts, supported by .  There is no |synthesis in the article, and no , merely facts
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)

Comment: It's  if the article's text |synthesizes, however simply citing facts from  is not 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: First of all, |WP is not a battleground, so I don't know what these sides and winning are.  WP is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia, where anything must be previously published in . Therefore any statements, such as attempts to get accredited, which are not published in  are 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: Except as a student of St. Christopher's, you may have a |conflict of interest, and you're endorsement may be seen in this light.  As far as the arguments themselves, multiple international states and countries stating that these schools are unaccredited/fraudulent/unlicenseable is notable.  If someone feels that the articles do not meet , then they should be copyedited, and this is not a valid rationale for deletion.  But as far as  goes, the policy requires that two opposing viewpoints be given the same treatment and weight.  However, there is only one valid viewpoint which is backed by  here - that these schools are unaccredited.   does not forbid the inclusion of cited negative material
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:NPOV||WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:NPOV)