Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autry 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 redirect‎ to List of CareerTech centers in Oklahoma. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. I'm not going to protect the redirect, but strongly caution TulGuy to stop canvassing and other disruption. Star Mississippi 13:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autry Technology Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect removed, so here we go. Originally sent to draft and then abandoned & deleted. No more notable now than then, no SIGCOV in RSes presented and none on search - all self-referenced or super-local sources. Tagged for advertisement, and with reason. Redirect to List of CareerTech centers in Oklahoma or Delete and SALT - your choice, folks... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and Oklahoma. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't understand the complaint that somehow this educational institution is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. It has 22,724 students this year alone; and, since it has been around since 1967, I would guess it has a few hundred thousand alumni. Yes, it's a technical school, so the graduates aren't winning Nobel prizes-- although I did find one New York Times best-selling author-- and are instead doing things like fixing air conditioning, repairing cars, and providing nursing services-- in other words, the kind of jobs the rest of us depend upon someone else doing. I can find plenty of educational institutions on Wikipedia (high schools, small colleges, etc.) that have less of an impact, but which nevertheless seem to merit a page.

I also don't see how you can find fault with the article itself. It runs several hundred words-- certainly not a "stub"-- and cites 19 different sources, only 3 of which are from Autry itself. I can provide a list of existing pages on educational institutions that are stubs and/or contain 3-5 references, and do not understand why a much-harsher standard is being applied to Autry. Further, the complaint that it reads like an advertisement is something the prior deletion caused. The page certainly didn't read like an advertisement when it was deleted the first time, on the purported basis it wasn't "notable" enough. So, now, after material has been added to show how innovative and extraordinary the institution is, we get the complaint that it reads like an advertisement. Feel free to delete whatever material you believe "unacceptable" as the price for keeping the rest of the page in place, but please do not create a "Catch-22" where the institution is not "notable" enough to have a page unless it can be shown to be extraordinary, and then complain that the material showing it as extraordinary must cause its deletion as an advertisement. Sorry, this sound like casting around for an excuse, any excuse, to delete a perfectly legitimate page.

If I sound a little frustrated here, that's because I am. Enough is enough. I'm sure Wikipedia has appeal procedures, and I will certainly be utilizing them if this page is deleted again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TulGuy (talk • contribs)

TulGuy, it would be much more helpful if you could point to WP:THREE sources that make your case for meeting the general notability guideline. The above keep rationale reads like a case study in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and is unlikely to persuade as-is. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the input; but, as I understand the complaint, it is not about the quality of the article or whether it is properly documented-- it's about whether the subject is worthy of a page. Anyone can read the facts stated and, finding any of them convincing, look at the associated citations to make sure they support the statements made. The problem is the reviewer has looked at the facts and still isn't convinced this is a worthy topic, and nothing seems to be changing his/her mind. So no, with reference to the article you cited, I have no reason to believe this reviewer is trying to meet me halfway, which is why this will end up on appeal. But let's say I'm wrong. If the reviewer would like to indicate what the problem is, I will be more than happy to make changes to the article. Think it reads like an ad? The material about the innovative programs and the winning of awards (all true) was added specifically to address the complaint that the subject wasn't notable enough; so, that material can be easily removed if that fixes the problem and gets the page published. If you ask me, it is sufficient to show notability by saying this is an accredited institution of higher learning with 22,724 students this year alone and which has even been specifically cited by a 500-person employer as the reason they chose the institute's hometown for their location of their business. That shows a substantial institution which is doing its job and is per se notable. I have been around Wikipedia for years, and we all know that many, many subjects which are far, far more trivial have nevertheless ended up with a page. That's why I'm frustrated. (Perhaps the solution is to assign another reviewer, who can give me some useful feedback and we can get this resolved?)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just being around for a long time isn't notable here in Wiki. I can't find anything beyond routine listings of stuff happening there, the normal goings-on of this type of institution. "Semi-modern" institution, it's not even 100 years old yet. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of CareerTech centers in Oklahoma. Many of the other Oklahoma vo-techs are redirected so this seems to be the consistent option. The advertisement tag is appropriate and the article seems to violate WP:NPOV. The message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oklahoma which alerted me of this discussion is even more non-neutral. That being said AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. However, as other editors have suggested it needs to have adequate sourcing that meets WP:GNG. No objection to recreation if article can meet this threshold, some apparently do. I would argue against salting as of this time, but maybe a page protection for the redirect.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since the standards are not being applied fairly to all schools, I vote to keep the article. I'd love to see what rubric is really being applied here that allows so many other schools to stay up, but this particular one is nominated for deletion. The advertising style language could certainly be rephrased for a more neutral tone. If dead colleges, such as Phillips University for example, which also served the same community can have a page, why can't an active educational institution have one? Many public libraries have pages on Wikipedia as well. I come from the inclusionist perspective, and long established educational institutions seem inherently notable. As to the number of students and so forth, just because it serves a smaller community doesn't mean it isn't notable. This is a bias in favor of large cities that I have seen a number of times on Wikipedia which is used to delete articles. Thousands of people have passed through this vocational technical school even if the students may not have been particularly notable themselves. Kiddo27 (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note Tulguy is WP:Canvassing other users. [1], [2], including this line "I don’t know if he hates Oklahoma or what" on WT:Oklahoma.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He also asked me here User_talk:WhisperToMe#Autry_Technology_Center WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd have to look at the secondary sources to see if they are independent of the subject. I would imagine that there would be enough but I'll need to spend some time to do so first. And as stated above Tulguy requested that I look at the matter. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I found a source here: "Aviation Training Classes Canceled". The Daily Oklahoman. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 1995-05-16. p. 8. - See clip. This discusses a set of classes, funded by a grant, that ended up being canceled. I want to see if I can find more sources like this. Also, this source is from the state capital, Oklahoma City, and also I believe "super-local" sources are generally acceptable to source content about non-profit educational institutions. I also notice the Newspapers.com references for Oklahoma newspapers covering this topic seem to only date to 1995. I could contact the Oklahoma City newspapers to see if they had 1970s and 1980s articles discussing this institution. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I sent a message to The Oklahoman and hopefully they'll find 1970s-1995 archives about this institution. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to the list article cited previously. Institution fails WP:NSCHOOL and per ATD, a redirect is better than deletion. Note the keep !votes here are overwhelmingly WP:ILIKEIT votes that conflate perceived importance with notability. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that the "Aviation Training Classes Canceled" shows a real possibility of notability. I just need to wait to hear back from the newspaper to see if there are more sources which can develop this angle. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The newspaper sourcing looks fine to me. Yes they're local sources, but they're normal newspapers and should meet WP:RS. The rest of the sourcing is less than ideal. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Lacks sources to meet WP:GNG. Also, poor form by Tulguy to be WP:CANVASSING votes here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:07, 28 April 2023 (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.