Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastland-Fairfield Career & Technical 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 keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eastland-Fairfield Career & Technical School

[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)

Has been draftified hoping for improvement. Was returned to mainspace with same issues, was prodded, then deprodded without improvement. Gets mentions, but is difficult to tell what this is even about: is it a single school? Is it a school district? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination provides no reason for deletion. Confusion regarding what the article is about should be reduced by reading the article lead. Perhaps changing the article title to Eastland-Fairfield Career & Technical Schools would be helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thought it was clear. Fails WP:GNG, as there is not a single in-depth reference from a reliable, independent, secondary source. And a WP:BEFORE did not find any.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject satisfies the General Notability guideline - which looks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'll point out that 'significant' is not a synonym of 'in depth'.

There is coverage to be found via Newspapers.com. I listed some on the talk page on November 18. Some examples below have quotes from connected individuals but still in sum there is significant coverage from multiple articles.

Additional articles located today:

It is likely there is more significant coverage that hasn't been identified. Gab4gab (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More coverage found:

Keep. Sources found so far on newspapers.com easily meet GNG, even before being used in the article, since sources exist demonstrating the notability of the subject, per WP:CONTN. Gab4gab has added three sources already, with plenty more to used to improve the article. Good WP:HEY effort. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite a few sources have been found to show that the subject belongs in the encyclopedia. Bruxton (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2022 (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.