Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coleraine College

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep.   jj137 ^♠ 00:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coleraine College

Coleraine College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

College page that doesn't assert any notability and provides very little information. Mikemill (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete After getting into its difficult-to-find website, I conclude that this isn't a college in the sense of post-secondary education. It has 500 "pupils" and 45 staff. It's not entitled to any more deference than the average high school. Mandsford (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source - If my highschool has managed to source a Article well enough, Im sure this can also be sourced well enough. (and no that isnt a othercrap argument) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course that school at least tries to make some claim to notibility. Mikemill (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • <sarcastic> not very well ... my highschool wasnt good at doing a lot of things if memory recalls<sarcasticend> Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not entitled to any less deference than the average high school. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So we should keep articles that fail WP:CORP Just because other articles exist that would also fail? Mikemill (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, as I look at the article now, it meets WP:CORP criteria with multiple, independent, reliable sources cited in the article. Perhaps that wasn't the case when Mikemill added his comment. Noroton (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nominator Mikemill (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as really marginal per my standards. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Specifically, it is a fairly new amalgamated school, with no evidence that it is an Accredited Private school, no mention of notable alumni, no reliable sources, and no mentioned notable academic programs, major annual events, or scholastic sports (although the motto implies all of that). Bearian (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable, fact-checked, independent sources show up that establish any notability of this particular school. Please note that I typically advocate to keep schools based on simply existing, but this particular one does not meet my (very lenient) standards. Keeper | 76 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agree needs more work, website link in article so not that difficult to find! Agree with Phil Bridger. Paste (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the way forward with these articles on amalgamated schools is to wrap up the history of all three schools in the one page. Separate searches show sufficient material. I'll add some sourced content in due course. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It would have been much more helpful if the nominator had instead put a notability tag on the article. A five-day AfD a few days before Christmas is not easy to handle. The situation is complicated here because the school has only recently been amalgamated. As TerriersFan explains it is therefore necessary to search for all three school names. It is apparent that sufficient sources exist, and notability can easily be proven. Dahliarose (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since WP:N criteria are already (barely) met with multiple, independent, reliable sources cited in the article. I also agree with TerriersFan's and Dahliarose's comments above. Noroton (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above, meets WP:N criteria and should gradually improve over time. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a fairly typcial article on a secondary school. It has had a work done on it in the past day or two and is tagged "under construction", which suggests it may be improved. The consensus seems to be that secondary schools usually are notable, so that the decision that one was not would raise POV issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.