Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Health Sciences Antigua
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
— User:Thivierr, 04:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:V (Wikipedia:Verifiability)