Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Thomas More School (Willenhall)


 * 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 per WP:HEY and WP:OUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

St. Thomas More School (Willenhall)

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

Unencyclopaedic article with no verifiable information, nothing to salvage  Chzz  ►  14:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - its an advertisement, and a badly-written one at that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 16:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 16:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's certainly in need of substantial cleanup, but there is verifiable information: the phone number, timetable and year-dependent tie all check out with the school website. It takes ages 11-18 and Articles for deletion/Common outcomes says we usually keep such schools. The article is only three weeks old. It'll probably get improved once the summer holidays are over. Qwfp (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's basically nothing recoverable here, it's entirely a blatant advertisement. If anyone wants to write a better article, they'd be better off starting from scratch. There's no reason for this article to be in an encyclopedia. &mdash; λ (talk | contribs) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The cleanup looks pretty good. It now has some verifiable sources, and reasonably encyclopedic content. Thanks, TerriersFan! &mdash; λ (talk | contribs) 12:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd even G11 this, but, well, there's nothing to salvage here. The telephone number/timetable are useless as we normally don't include them in any of our articles. The year dependent tie may be useful, but if that's all we can salvage, I think it's better to start from scratch. Tim Song (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now that it's effectively a brand-new article. High schools are per se notable under our rules, and sourcing does not seem to be a problem. Tim Song (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Willenhall, where the name, type of school and the unusual stuff about ties can be said in a couple of sentences. I would not stand in the way of a consensus to delete though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is, in UK terms, a large high school. I have fixed the concerns about the add content. Plenty of sources available for expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per general consensus on high schools, and TerriersFan's rewrite of the article nullifying the requirement of WP:TNT. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 00:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a secondary school and therefore appropriate encyclopedic content. I don't want to get into the question of whether they are all notable, but rather,  it is enough to say we have agreed to treat them all as if they were, because almost all of them are. The reason will be apparent from this discussion--do we want to have a hundred thousand more? That was what was happening before we wisely decided to accept a little imperfection.  DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The consensus is that secondary schools are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 29 August 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.