Deletion of Uxbridge College

Comment: Keep''' . There are already 12 references cited, 11 are independent, Ofsted reports always give significant coverage- there are 4 of them. As a matter of interest, could the posters above explain in their judgement, which bit of  is not satisfied. On a point of WP procedure, if an article fail to have enough sources (the word is multiple) then it should be nominated for a '''Merge'''. See note above
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I don't agree that Ofsted reports qualify under the GNG, for largely the reasons I explain {{dif|1002105623|here}}. Nonetheless, the remaining sources are adequate: Pearce's book and the local press coverage are enough to meet the GNG. (The fact that these sources are offline or paywalled is irrelevant; see .) While I'm not averse to a merge in theory, it probably ought to go through the |ordinary process: this article ''can'' stand on its own, so merging it would simply be an editorial decision that doesn't belong at AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SOURCEACCESS||WP:PAM)

Comment: A respectable institution with a long history and a good variety of sources following improvement.   applies "''If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.''"  See also ; ; ; &c
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:IMPERFECT||WP:NEXIST||WP:PRESERVE)