Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasland Junior School (2nd nomination)


 * 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 --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hasland Junior School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completing unfinished nom, I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close; Bad faith nom. Considering the IP address that started the AFD has only made unconstructive edits to the article, adding excessive citation needed tags (adding these to facts like the location of the school or other obviously true statements is just disruptive), delinking dates, etc. The same user who vandalized a related article here (compare with that vandal's other edit here, the same disruptive edits as the IP who started this AFD. Masaruemoto 20:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes the IP may have went a little overboard with the cite tags, I am not seeing anything notable about the school. The article reads like an advertisement for the school, and nothing else. If there is an article on the school district it belongs to, redirect there. TJ Spyke 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If this had been nominated in good faith, with a reasonable rationale (or any rationale), I would probably have said "delete" as well (that's why I suggested "Speedy close" instead of "Speedy keep"). I can't support a nomination by a user that appears to be vandal on principal. Masaruemoto 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. How can an article like this, rated B class, even be considered for deletion? Schumi555 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The article is well written, informative (I've never understood how an educational institution article can be criticized as an "advert")  This article has 20 references, it's well cited.  A vandal has continuously added "citation needed" tags to ridiculous parts of the article (like location and date of opening), for the most part, unnecessarily.  As a comparison, Song X on Album Y by Band Z is more of an advert, generally only citing in-universe sources and band webpages, but they consistently stay because they are viciously defended by biased fans.   This is about a school folks, albeit a junior school.  Let it stay. It doesn't have a wiki-fan base like the pop culture cruft that plagues this place.  It isn't recentivism, it is not an advert, and it belongs on Wikipedia because it meets and exceeds each "policy hurdle" needed to stay.  Sourced, verifiable, thorough, organized, photoed nonstub - an exceptional article amongst much schoolcruft.  I would think this would have been nominated for a GA, not an AfD.  The first nom was a bad faith nom, there is no need to revisit.      Keeper  |  76  15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)  Striking my last sentence there.  The first nom by finngall was not bad faith, just a little quick, and I apologize for that comment.  The nomination was withdrawn by Finngall though because the article was improved, not because the nom was bad faith.  Since that time, it has been vandalized several times by an unregistered user and shouldn't have been renominated from the log without really looking at the previous AfD.  Even without the nom withdrawal, the consensus was most certainly leaning towards keep once the article was sourced and expanded.  Keeper  |  76  15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Seems to be very well written, informative and well worth inclusion on English Wikipedia. It certainly seems notable. Kevin 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close. There is no need to complete nominations made in bad faith.  Yamaguchi先生 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I thinkthe school is non-notable, and in fact could be speedily delete for failingto assert same. But the nomination appears to have been made in bad faith, and so this should possibly be closed. I don't know what rules apply here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:44, 21 October 2007 (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.