Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wichita Technical Institute


 * 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. The few actual independent sources added to the article are all basically the same press-release based filler. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wichita Technical Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-degree granting, non-notable career school. 2 says you, says two 03:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references from newspapers. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  – Eastmain (talk • contribs)  04:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the sources referenced in the article are generic press-releases that are available word-for-word in at least three or four other sources, they all start with something along the lines of "from wire reports" and read like advertisements. As a non-degree granting, for profit institution they need to show some form of independent notability, and that would be accomplished through non-trivial journalism about the school, not press-releases. 2 says you, says two  14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep added references establish notability RadioFan (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete In answer to "added references establish notability", no they don't. They all report fairly minor facts: for example this one is a six sentence report the main point of which is that the institute has moved to a new location. This one contains a three sentence mention of the institute among many similar brief mentions of other news items. The whole character of these "reports" suggests that these are no more than press releases, and such facts as their existing verbatim in different sources (as pointed out by User "2" above) confirms this impression: for example this cited source is duplicated here here and here: this is exactly what would be expected with press releases, but not with original journalist-written copyright material. I can only assume that when RadioFan wrote "added references establish notability", he/she had not examined the sources very closely. These sources come nowhere near indicating notability by Wikipedia standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment this article needs to be looked at from the point of view of WP:CORP rather than as a school. Coverage in the local business newspaper as well as the mainstreem paper is enough for any other kind of business to meet notabilty guidelines, its enough for this business.  They just happen to be in the business of selling education. RadioFan (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - a lot of original research and quality control problems. This article will be very difficult to properly source.  Incidental local coverage does not establish notabiity. Racepacket (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - I have successfully PRODed other articles written by this editor and reported him at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. This may be a case of paid editing. Racepacket (talk) 08:59, 25 February 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.