Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guagua National Colleges

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guagua National Colleges

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

Deprodded with "secondary and tertiary colleges are generally accepted as notable". However, I still think WP:GNG trumps that, as I find virtually nothing in the way of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable secondary and tertiary institution. Therefore notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tertiary school. Google News Archives show national coverage, incidental but Google News only has records for Philippine secondary sources from around 2000. Being established in 1918 also makes it one of the older schools of the Philippines. Google Book Search reveals more coverage, and Googling with its older name verifies age, with sources going back to 1935 when the Philippine education system was still under the U.S. Dept. of Education. A presumption of further significant offline sources is not uncalled for here. That said, the article needs work.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - by long-standing precedent we keep verifiable tertiary institutions. In Filipino terms this is a historic institution and no evidence that there has been a search for local sources. Sources likely to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My understanding is that the general practice is to keep such secondary schools, if they are verifiable. This secondary school, though its coverage is very light, is verifiable. The article is in a grave state, and most of its text presently fails our core policy of wp:v. But AfD is not for cleanup.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2012 (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.