Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JMC Academy


 * 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   delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

JMC Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A search fails to find any significant secondary sources, current sources are academy website and a reference regarding directorship held by founder. Fails WP:ORG  Flat Out  let's discuss it  11:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the nominator removed material from this article before nominating it for deleteion.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Tertiary schools are presumed to be wp:notable.  This one checks out using Google books and Google news.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide links to support that presumption and those stories? Small private vocational education providers are a dime a dozen in Australia, and few are actually notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you try looking in WP:OUTCOMES? Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you referring to? I didn't have much luck with Google (lots of PR-type stuff and routine directory listings, but no in-depth coverage) Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At WP:Articles for deletion/Kippax Uniting Church, I made a comment that gave evidence that the nom and the !voters had not looked at the sources in the article. Your subsequent post nominally ignored my comment, but the nature of your reply gave support to the practice of ignoring sources in the article.  You have yet to agree that nominators should mark deadlinks as a part of WP:BEFORE.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The other point here is that since you ignored the question I asked, and this is common knowledge, I suggest you ask at the help desk. Unscintillating (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete One of dozens (hundreds?) of small non-notable Australian private sector institutions. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency record for this institution states that it's not self-accrediting,, which seems a pretty important threshold test for the significance of Australian tertiary providers in the absence of reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete as per nomination. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good afternoon (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as no evidence of any notability. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can understand the plan and simple "it's not notable argument. In looking around, other then it exists, there is nothing that I can find to allow for inclusion.  - Pmedema (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2014 (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.