Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MWICPS
the original proposal is very astute-- though not itself grounds for deletion, it does demand some added weight. Since there presently isn't anything to bring it away from being a generic informational article without alternate resources and notability addressed, that COI issue isn't even the largest. Though I don't deny that a school of this "level" would end up with an article in many cases, no article is exempt from the basisc. Also, I'll support almost any reasonable use of  as above. If it all seems to fit, it's hard to ignore
— User:Datheisen, 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)