Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Wolds Comprehensive School

South wolds school was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE

Substub for non-notable secondary school. --LeeHunter 14:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable school. jni 14:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Indrian 17:34, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability provided prior to expiration of VfD discussion. Current information not even worth including in Nottingham article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In present form: Merge and delete into Nottingham article, doing whatever is required to make this action GFDL-compliant. Let people who know Nottingham decide whether this is worthwhile information and let them and those who know the school sort it out between them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: 1. Misnamed, 2. Substub, 3. Imprecise about what it does have. I believe a case might be made for the school, and when an article does make the case, I'll consider it.  Geogre 18:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable means not encyclopedic topic means not encyclopedic. --Improv 20:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopedic and useful, but it should be moved to South Wolds Comprehensive School. Factitious 02:01, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. if it does no harm on wikipedia, it should be left alone. there are a lot of articles about items that just aren't notable... that's how wikipedia differs from other encyclopedias! i'm sure at least one reader in the world has gone to that school and appreciates it being there Enochlau 10:03, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is precisely how it does do harm on Wikipedia... by setting precedent and giving people the ability to say "there are a lot of articles about items that just aren't notable," so let's put more in. The way in which Wikipedia is supposed to differ from other encyclopedias is in being free. Putting in article like this doesn't do a lot of harm. Wikipedia can take quite a lot of this. But I honestly believe there need to be some standards for inclusion, and most Wikipedians agree, and, unfortunately, non-notable schools fall exactly on the borderline where there is no general consensus. I really do not know what would happen if Wikipedia contained 500,000 well-written articles on traditional encyclopedic topics and 5,000,000 articles resembling those found in personal webspaces and blogs. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. See no harm in keeping this article, hopefully a graduate of it is a billionaire who will donate some money to us ;). --ShaunMacPherson 12:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * One of my User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW questions is "Would an alumnus of the school, reading the article, be pleased at how knowledgeable the article was?" There is no way that this article in its present state would please an alum. It does not get that BEEFSTEW point. I score it 3/10. This is not an article. Everyone agrees that stubs serve no value in themselves. They are valuable only if they grow into articles. But stubs do not grow by themselves, someone needs to dig in and work on them. In the case of schools that one did not attend personally, this is both difficult and uninteresting work and I have expressed skepticism about the existence of a pool of editors seriously interested in doing it. Factitious, however, votes to keep schools and works on improving school articles. In fact, he worked on this one; as originally submitted its BEEFSTEW score was 0/10. But this article is still a poor article about a non-notable school. I have said, and my voting behavior shows, that I am willing to keep good articles about borderline-notable schools. (Others, particularly  Improv, Geogre disagree with me fairly sharply about this). If you think this article should be kept, why don't you take a whack at improving it yourself? Imagine that future billionaire alumnus and think what could go in the article that would be true, objective, encyclopedic, yet give him or her a warm fuzzy. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Incorrectly named, and I don't feel it warrants an article in its own right, judging by the current content. Only notable to those who've actually gone to the school, you can easily live in Nottingham for five years and never hear of the place. A pared down version of this data could go in an article on education in Nottingham. Average Earthman 17:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Non-notable school. Delete.   RickK 20:32, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * No proof of notability. JFW | T@lk  04:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs much work &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  20:50, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Non-notable only to those not from Keyworth, Nottingham. Ideally Keyworth should be written, and the content from here put into the town article. Meanwhile - keep. No reason to delete sensible facts. zoney &#09827; talk 21:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Encyclopedic, relevant, factually accurate, verifiable. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 00:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.