Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-Age Cluster Class (MACC)

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 per discussion as failing notablity requirements and WP:V. Shell ^babelfish 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Age Cluster Class (MACC)

Not encyclopediac, of local (if any) interest only, implicit attack Wtshymanski 21:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, (aeropagitica) (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying that on every AfD, even those which are not of notability concerns, could you try to be more specific? ST47 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ST47 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vancouver School Board, and apply some NPOV --17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge as above - interesting concept, but not really one that needs to be broken out. I didn't get a lot of Google action with this either, so it's a bit on the narrow focused side. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a former MACC student, I believe that this article should stay put, just where it is. There is a MACC website, for whoever "didn't get a lot of action on Google". It is [1]here and is entirely verifiable.

The question that needs to be answered here is whether it is verifiable through reliable sources as being notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That site would appear to be made by the group in question, not a reference to it from an outside source - which was what I was referring to by my Google comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:57, 28 August 2006 (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.