Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uxbridge 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.  Sandstein  16:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Uxbridge College

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG, most of sources are of college website. Don't have independent sources. Princepratap1234 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 18:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 18:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think we have generally found colleges of further education in the UK to be notable. Like most secondary and tertiary institutions in western countries there is enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  Merge  Keep . There are already 12 references cited, 11 are independent, Ofsted reports always give significant coverage- there are 4 of them. As a matter of interest, could the posters above explain in their judgement, which bit of WP:GNG is not satisfied. On a point of WP procedure, if an article fail to have enough sources (the word is multiple) then it should be nominated for a Merge. See note above. ClemRutter (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to what? Although your argument seems to actually be to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The merged HCUC (Harrow College & Uxbridge College) has had a more recent monitoring visit in June 2019. (From the article) This causes us a problem, as the article is a Keep, but as the two colleges have merged, the protocol suggests there should be one article. Having followed the protocol we have a an unbalanced long article- and one of the first actions would be to spin off each college into separate articles!- ie we would come back to the status quo. As this has not been spotted it appears that editors have not read the article before making a vote. To clarify the situation- I will change the merge to keep.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A respectable institution with a long history and a good variety of sources following improvement. WP:ATD applies "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  See also WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep GNG has no requirements for what most of the sources are like. The article has independent sources (Ofsted) and also did so at the time of nomination. I think merge would be a very good idea but merges mandated at AFD can lead to unnecessarily destructive editing. An adequate nomination might have been persuasive but this one was not. Must try harder. Thincat (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't agree that Ofsted reports qualify under the GNG, for largely the reasons I explain . Nonetheless, the remaining sources are adequate: Pearce's book and the local press coverage are enough to meet the GNG. (The fact that these sources are offline or paywalled is irrelevant; see WP:SOURCEACCESS.) While I'm not averse to a merge in theory, it probably ought to go through the ordinary process: this article can stand on its own, so merging it would simply be an editorial decision that doesn't belong at AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ofsted sources may not be appropriate to count for GNG but the claim in the nomination was that none of the sources are independent. Ofsted are certainly supposed to be independent. Other than that I agree with your remarks. Thincat (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are more references in the local paper which I haven't had time to add in, and I think there are likely to be offline sources too. I agree there is a potential issue re merging the article with Harrow College, and the need for an article, whether this one or a new one, to be named HCUC (Harrow College & Uxbridge College), which appears to be the formal name of the merged college. Tacyarg (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete From what I can tell the references in the article are mostly primary. Except for a few trivial ones that don't address the topic in an in-depth manor. So I think this is delete. Although weakly. Mainly because this is not a main school and the guidelines say "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both." Therefore, I'm choosing to go with this not passing GNG/ORG. That said, I think the keep arguments are just as valid though and I'd be more then fine with the AfD being closed that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I signed up for the free trial subscription to the British Newspaper Archive, and while I could grump about the skitterish controls and useless OCR function, I was able to read two articles listed in the article. "Changed plans" was substantive, but the "25 years ago" was a single sentence. I did also find a 1993 piece about a work dispute, "Lecturers in Work-to-rule" which was substantial. Those local news articles and the Pearce book (AGF) are enough to pass GNG. I am less familiar with Ofsted reports, which appear to be similar to accreditation reports in the U.S. However, the process here is to send a team of evaluators, who spend three days at a college to verify and also to challenge a self-evaluation written by the college. The two reports cited here appear to be written by a single evaluator? At any rate, there is enough evidence of reliable independent sources for GNG. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)
 * Keep Article has sufficient sourcing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2021 (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.