Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cumberland County Schools


 * 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   Speedy keep per fast consensus and lack of a reason to delete.  Syn  ergy 07:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cumberland County Schools

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I added a "cleanup-rewrite" tag in April, and this article barely changed since. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - under what grounds are you requesting a deletion of the article? You haven't made yourself clear. Turlo Lomon (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the page for a rewrite, and it remains unchanged.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep no valid reason for deletion given. See WP:DEL. Hobit (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As stated, no reason given for deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- no real rationale for deletion provided, and i see no reason to delete it myself. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The lead paragraph is a valid stub worth preserving. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As no valid reason for nomination. While cleanup issues are a problem, they are not grounds for deletion. -Brougham96 (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. School articles are generally kept, and not being cleaned up in a timely manner is by no means a reason for deletion. Calor (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep School district articles are generally always considered notable. If the United States article needed clean up, then would we delete it? The answer is no, and the answer shouldn't be any different here; articles about notable subjects need to be kept and cleaned up. Close this per WP:SNOW. GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 03:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, there was another deletion debate closed in the same day, and its review said it was closed too soon.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I've seen other AfDs similar to this one, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this is going to be deleted for the given reason. If it is deleted, then someone will probably take it to deletion review, and it will probably get undeleted. GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're wondering, the review is archived at User:Balloonman/afd/Jim Jagielski .Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep An article not being changed since it has been tagged as needing cleanup is not a reason for it to be deleted. And School district articles usually meet WP:NOTE. Coffee //  talk  //  ark  // 03:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. AFD is not clean-up. The information in the article remains valid and even if it's messy it is still of benefit to the reader. Subject is a large school district which concerns many people and has almost surely been covered in the local (Fayetteville, NC) press many times. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:31, 1 September 2008 (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.