Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TRECA


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

TRECA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Considerably speedy and PROD material but as my searches found a few links here, here, here and here, I wanted comments to see if this can be improved. SwisterTwister  talk  06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 22:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added several references to the article, from the Highbeam search posted by SwisterTwister. I suggest the article be refocused to be about the online school, TRECA Digital Academy, rather than the parent company. The school seems notable while the company does not. And since it is a diploma-granting institution, it may qualify for an article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If the article is kept, I will undertake to rewrite, refocus, and rename the article to be about the school. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Certainly neither a candidate for speedy deletion, the claims of significance are credible, nor for uncontroversial deletion observing WP:PRODNOM. I have added 3 cite books and 3 cite news, there's sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources available to pass WP:GNG. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:28, 24 October 2015 (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.