Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central 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. Despite the sources provided in this discussion, the analysis determined that these were not sufficient establish the institution's notability. ✗plicit 04:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Technology Center

[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)

This article reads very clearly like an advertisement and has very little to any biographical information. Either the article needs to be rewritten as from an encyclopedic perspective or should be deleted. Halfadaniel (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article's in poor quality, and it's certainly a small vocational school- (roughly equivalent to a county-size community college, perhaps 250 students?), but there are appear to be articles that would make it pass GNG 1 2 3. I also think there's probably something notable around their pipeline training program. If someone was motivated, merging it and the other voc schools into Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education might make sense. tedder (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the references provided by Tedder are particularly strong. The first is local newspaper interview, the second is a blog post, and the other two are primary. None of which counts for notability. I couldn't find anything better either. So I'm not sure what grounds there are to keep this on. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Adamant1—unless more sources can be found, the ones present and proposed here aren't enough to pass GNG. A newspapers.com search looks promising, but the harder you look, the less there is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:16, 11 November 2021 (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.