Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echuca 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Echuca College]]=

:{{la|Echuca College}} ([{{fullurl:Echuca College|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echuca College}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Unsourced article about a non-notable school. No evidence to suggest that the school is in any way notable even if judges at the Rock Eisteddford are moved to tears! Mattinbgn\talk 02:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\talk 02:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources are fairly [http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/776771 easily] [http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19800204&id=E3gQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=l5IDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3340,1858414 found] to establish existence- certainly it needs major cleanup, but not deletion. tedder (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. No-one is questioning its existence. Fails WP:SCHOOL, even if that is one of the most ignored inclusion criteria in WP. Nothing special about this school. –Moondyne 03:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

::No doubt WP:SCHOOLS is one of the "most ignored inclusion criteria" because it failed to attain consensus! WWGB (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Did you actually read Tedder's sources? The second one is an in-depth profile of the state of the school, with a lot of really useful information, and details quite a bit about the school that's unique - one thing that stood out is that it was one of the oldest technical schools in the state, but there was quite a bit more there. And that was just a two-minute search. Rebecca (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I must admit I only read the 1st one which was a not-very exciting 1994 photograph directory entry, hence my statement. My bad. Change to keep. Fanstastic? Sources? Gimme a break. –Moondyne 05:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) –Moondyne 04:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Moondyne. The point is that they weren't too hard to find- it only took me half a minute to find those. tedder (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I do know what the point was and was responding to that. –Moondyne 06:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tedder has found some fantastic sources that a) back up a clear claim to notability, and b) could make for a really interesting expansion of this article. Rebecca (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - a clearly notable secondary school with sources available that meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep this is one of the articles that justifies our practice of keeping all articles on secondary schools.DGG (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I goto this school and will be able to keep it up to date.Techgeek2007 (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2009 (AEST)

::Techgeek2007, please read Wikipedia's notes on original research. However, being connected isn't a bad thing- can you help find reliable sources on it? tedder (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Tedder, sorry, I have added a reference to do with the buildings and will try and use references in the future. techgeek2007 (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2009 (AEST)

: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.