Talk:Earle Page College

Australia: New South Wales / Education Low‑importance

	Australia portal Earle Page College is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Notability

Removing the {{Notability|date=September 2009}} flag... Ridiculous. Andrewa (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't noticed your comment here. I reverted your edit due to lack of a summary but have since replaced the tag requesting at least one source for this article. I've also made some heavy edits. This was by far one of the worst articles I had ever seen on wikipedia. Statements like: "Every year since 1973, EPC has produced a musical of tremendous proportions" have been reworded. Comprehensive unreferenced lists of students have been removed. I have also corrected gross formatting errors. Freikorp (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it needed and still needs work. But we've had (and still probably have) far, far worse.

I stand by my comment of Ridiculous. There was and is a clear claim to notability, and one which even a trivial attempt at research would have verified. To have such a tag there, unsupported, unsupportable, unchallenged, and years old, is to me far more embarrassing than the state of the article. We may not agree on that!

Thanks for your edits. I'll have a look for sources. Andrewa (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

These contributions [1] while fascinating are unsourced and there's not much chance of the contributor responding [2] so I'd have to agree with their removal.

If anyone can find sources (anyone currently at UNE can probably do it in 15 minutes in Dixon) we can reinstate it. Andrewa (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]