Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Wensam 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) Adam9007 (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

University Wensam College

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable university, Fails WP:GNG. CSD was declined. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 18:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I think PROD may have been better. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — MRD2014  (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as not only is there a claim of significance but it's a notable school (it has a website here), so as with all of the colleges and universities that are notable including if it has a "oldest" claim), this is not deletion material. SwisterTwister   talk  19:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Terrible "article", of course, but notable subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article subject *might* be a secondary school (and thus falling within typical WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) but there are zero sources here. This might be an unaccredited diploma mill for all we know.  A  Train ''talk 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you haven't spotted the refs provided by Clarityfiend and SwisterTwister above? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate to be pedantic,, but none of those are reliable sources.  A  Train ''talk 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So now government sources aren't reliable? Interesting opinion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not a newspaper or journal or other secondary source.  A  Train ''talk 10:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In no way does that make it a non-reliable source as you claim. Government sources are always taken as reliable sources unless they are clear propaganda. In fact, it is a secondary source as this is not a government-run school. Its existence is confirmed by external sources. It should therefore be kept under the consensus outlined at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Consensus is that simply stating "keep per schooloutcomes" isn't enough and sources should be provided - Sources have been provided and all 3 confirm the school exists (realistically I like many others would prefer something much more substantial however that's impossible when it comes to schools - the sources all confirm the schools existence which is enough), no valid reason for deletion. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep sources confirm it exists. It's a notable institution per our longstanding consensus.  In desperate need of clean up, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2016 (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.