Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GlobalEDGE Tech Prep

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. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalEDGE Tech Prep

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Many issues, would need a fundamental rewrite. No references provided. Bit of an advert -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the issues raised by the nominator, it is evident that this subject fails our general notability guideline. The consortium in question is a relatively local program that does not appear to have been covered significantly in reliable sources. This, a Dallas Morning News article from 1998, is the only Google news hit, and that sort of minor local-news filler piece is certainly not enough to establish notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Moreover, Wikipedia is not for promotion, and this article is written with a promotional tone throughout; it reminds me of a brochure. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Dallas Morning News has written multiple pieces on the Global EDGE Tech Prep Consortium (see here). There are other sources strewn about that we would have to pay for access to. Bad article quality isn't a deletion reason (e.g. stubify). Blurpeace 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few mentions in The Dallas Morning News does not equate to significant or widespread coverage about the subject. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen two other news sources write on them, and The Dallas Morning News isn't writing passing mentions, rather entire stories. Also, see this. Blurpeace 23:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of the The Dallas Morning News coverage, there were a couple of "press release" style articles back in 1998 when this was started, but nothing significant since then. In light of the book result you showed, it might be worth a redirect to Collin County Community College District and a mention there. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Pontificalibus. Reading the Morning News articles, I find it difficult to call them "significant coverage." Those articles that aren't press release-style short takes are just tangential mentions. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Collin College or just delete. Only one source covered it, Dallas Morning News, which is of local interest only; fails WP:ORG. It's also hosted on the college's web site, so hardly independent. Pcap ping 12:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.