Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abolishment of the School Boards


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Abolishment of the School Boards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article would benefit from a consensus as to whether or not it's a WP:NOTNEWS violation. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me after replying off my talk page 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me after replying off my talk page 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me after replying off my talk page 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me after replying off my talk page 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a Ctrl+C/V of the same section in Education in Quebec, suggesting this is some kind of WP:CFORK that really needs to be rewritten in a much more neutral manner.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 09:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. Material already exists in the other article, there’s no reason for a separate article at all, let alone the current offering. Neiltonks (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's notable information but it belongs as a section in Education in Quebec, where it already exists word-for-word, lo and behold.  PK  T (alk)  14:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can imagine a path to a standalone article about this — but it would need to be written and titled much more neutrally than this (the actual objective name of the legislation is the correct title for any article about a piece of legislation, dudes!), and include a lot more detail supported by a lot more than just four footnotes. Simply cutting and pasting the existing content verbatim from another article that already contains it, and then walking away without making any discernible effort to expand it any further, is not the path to spinning this out as a standalone topic. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.