Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillfield Strathallan College


 * 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 of the debate was keep. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hillfield Strathallan College
I think this college is non-notable; anyway, text is close to patent nonsense. Delete or send to BJAODN: the description of the major &ldquo;barely resorting to academic dishonesty&rdquo; will be perfectly in context there. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC) The article now establishes the notability of the school and nonsense has been removed. I change my vote to Keep. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Despite its name, this “college” is not a college, it’s a school. Refer to its website. I am not voting at this time, but there is nothing in this article worth saving outside the school’s name and location. &spades;DanMS 15:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a college. In British usage, college can mean "high school", and that's why Torontonian high schools are called "collegiate institutes": they are colleges, but they are afraid that people would say "these aren't colleges", so they made up some complicated word that just means "college"—Wing 00:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, poorly written advertisment, I mean article that is borderline BJAODN.Gateman1997 21:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless rewritten with verifiable information. This is a speedy candidate. --Tony Sidaway Talk  21:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (revised opinion). An excellent rewrite. A round of applause for that research and editing! --Tony Sidaway Talk  22:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense. --Carnildo 22:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I replaced old content. I haven't had time to do a good job yet, but there's a worthwhile history, which, hopefully with other sources, would be a good basis for an article.  --rob 23:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thank you rob. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks much better and more verifiable now. JYolkowski // talk 23:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and thank you rob for taking the initiative to improve this article into something worthwhile. Silensor 23:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep like the several thousand other school articles. CalJW 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Youth orchestra renders this school notable. Denni &#9775; 03:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, houses notable youth orchestra. And let's keep in mind the version was nominated before falling back to the usual arguments. When it was originally AFDed it was very much a candidate with very little salvageable information. - Mgm|(talk) 08:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominating schools, regardless of how terrible the article is, is a waste of our time. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A waste of your time perhaps. Not a waste of mine. Denni &#9775; 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please this is a real school less time could have been spent on improving the article instead of having this kind of a discussion again and again and again Yuckfoo 17:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article (before the very good edits by rob) was nominated because it didn't establish the notability of the school and was mostly nonsense. I don't think that schools should be extempted from the policies about notability and nonsense, as the last two comments seem to suggest. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with half of that. The nonsense warranted deletion, and effectively that's what I did, since I simply deleted all the old text, and wrote something new in it's place.  If I had admin powers I would have speedied it, closed the AFD (consensus speedy delete), and then created the new article.  Perhaps a kind admin could now delete the older history, and close this AFD early (keeping the new version obviously).  This would respect the votes of every participant.   --rob 23:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Careful wqhat you wish for. Frankly, I am not interested in admins doing the sort of thing you suggest, because it will inevitably lead to admins only doing half of what you recommend.--Nicodemus75 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The main issue here was the nonsense. I admit I was wrong in raising the issue of notability (which has never been my primary concern anyway). If the page were simply a one-line description of the school, I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. What I don't like of some of the comments above is the idea that articles about schools should never be nominated for deletion even if they violate other policies beside notability. As Mgm suggested, keep in mind that the version that was nominated was mostly nonsense. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Paolo Liberatore deserves thanks for dealing with vandalism (which is what an article with pure nonsense and a semi-attack is). With a minor edit to the article name, not a single thing of the original article article is left.  The only difference between my changes, and a speedy delete/replace, is the extreme lack of speed.  --rob 12:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, improved or not, fails to establish why it deserves an article on Wikipedia. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 20:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the article is obviously very incomplete. But, there is ample sources of the history (and the school in general).  I'm sure when someone has a chance to wade through the 200 newspaper articles mentioning the school's name, the 278 unique sites in google hits, 668 total Google hits, and the history on the school's own web site, that it will be better explained.  We shouldn't expect articles to be made instantly perfect from the start.  The potential for expansion/improvement has been clearly shown here.  --rob 22:46, 21 October 2005 (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.