Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dillon County Technology Center

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon County Technology Center[edit]

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

This like similar institutions (I've seen articles only of them in Texas &Oklahoma, though they may be elsewhere also) is a specialized teaching facility, not a degree granting high school. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP and found nothing to actually suggest better solid independent notability for an article. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails WP:V in its current state. Assuming it does exist, I'd redirect to Dillon,_South_Carolina#Education.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to mention that the IP that has made a lot of edits recently is probably under a conflict of interest. This is just my gut instinct, but I traced the IP. The IP editor in question is from Dillon, NC and the IP appears to be registered to "SC Budget and Control Board Dillon SC #3". I thought about taking this to WP:AN/I, but I thought i should mention it here first. --Saltedcake (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take to ANI, its quite common for editors to create articles on their schools or other local things.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We keep articles on high schools. Although this is not quite a traditional high school, it is a secondary level public educational institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this does exist (it isn't a school but a venture between several schools), but doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No citations and lacking any kind of comprehensible content. Maybe it will be recreated later with better sourcing, but for now I say we should just delete. Besides, the only notable contributions came from an IP copy-pasting from a PDF among other things. --Saltedcake (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a very strong supporter of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - but this isn't a school. It fails WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2016 (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.