Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindbergh Educational Center


 * 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (and yes I did notice that someone !voted "keep" twice) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lindbergh Educational Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable adult/ community education center, no assertion of notability, no sources, google turns up nothing other than the mere fact that they exist. GED prep centers and the like have no inherent notability, if schools weren't excluded from CSD, I'd tag A7. 2 says you, says two 03:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of news coverage; I added three citations to the article but there are many more. Sure they're all local, but so is the news coverage of most high schools - and high schools are generally considered to be notable. BTW this school is not a "GED prep center"; it offers actual high school diplomas and adult education classes as well as the GED. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources, yes but I have to disagree on the assertion that there's plenty of significant coverage:
 * The business programs link is a directory entry - this helps meet the threshold for verifiability but isn't coverage at all, let alone significant.
 * The school is mentioned in the RecordNet article but not really discussed, its more about a graduate himself.
 * The Manteca Bulletin article discusses budget problems in the school district, not specifically L.E.C.
 * The Manteca School general plan is a first-party source.
 * The article about students meeting the manga artist is a press-release by the school district and thus also first-party.
 * Mentions in other news-sources, press-releases, and master plans help expand an article by providing additional facts and insights, but these don't meet the criteria of being non-trivial third party sources that are required to satisfy the general notability guideline. I was misinformed to classify this as a GED prep center, but I still don't think there is enough for this to stand on its own. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge into Manteca Unified School District. 2 says you, says two 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Six additional citations with one coming from Cisco Systems and another from a non-profit group in Lynnwood, Washington have been introduced into the article tonight along with two citations to support the school has won an award. Additionally, present citation #12 known as the San Joaquin 1999 Training Directory contains many pages of information concerning the courses taught. Now that I think of it, I will change my vote to Strong Keep. --Morenooso (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the Sacremento Bee story is a significant reference, appears to be primarily about the school, and is not a press release. It's by a named staff writer of a reputable newspaper. I was rather skeptical of this until I read that reference.  DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Strong Keep - The subject has received coverage in secondary sources that are verifiable through its references and has won an award as documented by two citations. --Morenooso (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2010 (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.