Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Elizabeth Secondary School

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 redirect to School District 82 Coast Mountains. Sandstein 08:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Elizabeth Secondary School[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject does not meet WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage in local news, the type all schools would receive in local news. There is no sourced content to merge; it could be redirected if there is a target consensus. This is a nice, normal, school, with local news coverage, not an encyclopedic subject. // Timothy :: talk 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: School District 82 Coast Mountains again. A school contraction on this scale is of interest, and will make a fascination section and subsection, and my reservations about SIGCOV still apply ClemRutter (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the target provided by ClemRutter. I don't really care which, but this is a run of the mill that clearly lacks SIGCOV from what I can tell about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several notable alumni, and an odd history. Surely it can go somewhere, possibly merged. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2020 (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.