Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houlton 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Houlton School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An unopened school which is under construction. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage about the construction project in local news, every under construction school will receive this type of coverage and it does not meet SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: t | c | a  23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep If this article is deleted then all other secondary school articles must be deleted except for famous secondary schools. You can't just decide to delete this one and leave the rest. If this is deleted then I will happily help get the other non-notable articles deleted. If this is deleted and the others are not then you're just being stupid Sirhissofloxley (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sirhissofloxley (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * Numerous non-notable schools are deleted on an almost daily basis, see WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools. This is by no means the only one up for discussion. Spiderone  13:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete the decision in 2017 was that the rules for inclusion in the past on secondary schools were incorrect, and that in fact we should delete a lot of them. This article clearly does not pass our inclusion criteria for an organization, and so we should delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - while this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, currently it does not pass WP:ORGDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep no point in deleting it and then recreating it in a few years. G-13114 (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability and fails WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 05:32, 17 January 2021 (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.