Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handsworth Grange 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   keep. about to become a near snowball here - sufficent consensus  JForget  23:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The link of the article nominated was only a redirect to Handsworth Grange Community Sports College. I added the oldafd tag on the talk page of the latter as well as removing its afd tag. -- JForget 23:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Handsworth Grange School

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

This article bareley contains anything, I did try to find references for it but I only really found one decent one. This doesnt meet WP:GNG and I dont think its suitable for Wikipedia. Ha rle m 675 09:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

*Neutral – have you tried talking with the article's creator? Often with this kind of article a gentle nudge may get them to fill in more information (of course nodding to WP:RS, WP:N etc etc). I would say "delete" but I always think it is better to give a chance for people to fill in more info, and have had some successes with that approach. However, school's out for summer so perhaps it will meet no response anyway. It is likely delete therefore and have the editor recreate it later if need be. SimonTrew (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Looking at the history, it appears most activity is by bots and removal of personal details (which still exist on the edit summary): phone numbers, addresses etc. Nothing of interest here in the article itself and because of the personal details I think it should go delete. The original creator is redlink. SimonTrew (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I did mean the edit summary and not the history diff. The phone numbers and addresses/postcodes were added on the edit summary at creation. SimonTrew (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no personal details here. Even if there were, then it would be a matter for cleaning and certainly not grounds for deletion.
 * TerriersFan (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote another response which appears to have miscarried but anyway this supersedes it. You are right, the details are given for school (inc. postcode) and headteacher's name, not particularly personal as such. They are on the edit summary of the creation as I said. I don't like to say yes I want that deleted (I am an inclusionist) but this is so scant of any meaningful details it is useless as an encyclopaedia entry. I still think it should be deleted and then created again if there is anything useful to say about it, or in the alternate, why don't YOU add the information you say exists and the RS etc? Otherwise it is the usual case of people saying "oh there is some stuff that could be added" but not actually doing it themselves. My stats will show you about 85% of my time is in article space, a bit in template space, some in user space and very little in WP space. Just take WP:BOLD and add it. SimonTrew (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a high school, large in UK terms, that is significant in its community. It also has sports college status. Such articles should be expanded not deleted and reliable sources are avaialable. TerriersFan (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The accetped view is that all High Schools are notable. Some may question that, but we do not have any objective criteria for deciding which are (and are not) notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per TerriersFan expansion. Salih  ( talk ) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in line with Articles for deletion/Common outcomes: large secondary school, content of article is referenced or easily verified from school website. Qwfp (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Secondary schools are generally considered notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a large secondary school, which are generally considered notable. Allow for expansion.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 21:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is not a high school, neither in the american nor british sense. To say it is confuses the argument. It is an empty article and should be deleted. I agee that it should have some expansion, but since none has been shown, and those that have said it could be expanded have not done so, then delete it and when someone can be bothered to say something about it they can create it. Even though I am an inclusionist, I don't want 35,000 empty articles about schools. SimonTrew (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not empty now; it has sufficient information to keep as a stub. Salih  ( talk ) 16:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —TerriersFan (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently sourced and meets guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a High School and it is notable. I seem to recall that it has a long history, but School web sites these days never talk about the past. It is all about now. This needs investigating by an editor closer to Sheffield, where I was born. than to Melbourne, Australia. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a valid stub article with sufficient content on a suitably notable subject.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a secondary school which seems to have had a troubled history in recent years and consequently a lot of coverage in the national press. Plentiful sources are available to expand the article. Dahliarose (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2009 (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.