Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guisley Secondary School


 * 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 deleted as hoax. The creator has also vandalised the Guiseley page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Guisley Secondary School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page has been tagged with Template:Hoax and other templates, so I have searched it on google, but I can't find anything Round Maple (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a hoax - no parliamentary party in the UK has the power to act in the manner suggested. Mark   Dask  17:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep Comment The school appears to be real, but misspelled. Try Guiseley Secondary School []. My Keep only applies to the hoax rationale, so if you have any other reasons for deletion I offer no opinion. Monty  845  17:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The school should be publicly listed - if it is not then delete. Guiseley is a school. Guisley is not. Mark  Dask  18:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Guiseley. The stuff about Margaret Thatcher is, well, stuff and nonsense.  Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete The misspelling is of no importance, as the page can be moved if it is to be kept. However, the whole of the article is a hoax. The fact that a real school of a similar name exists does not in any way detract from the fact that the school described in the article does not exist. The real school is not a catholic school, was never named after Thatcher, nor opened by her, and in fact not a single statement about the school in the article is true. Once the article has been deleted there will be no problem in creating a redirect as suggested, but there is no justification for keeping the hoax in the article's history. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2011 (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.