Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webber Academy


 * 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   speedy keep. SK#2: nom was banned for sockpuppet disruption relating to this article, and no one else has recommended deletion. (non-admin closure) czar   &middot;   &middot;  15:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Webber Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Since the day of its creation this article has been flagged for being written like an advertisement. The page is acting as a propaganda tool to promote the institution's self interest and not supply reliable information on the institution itself. The article's contents are not sourced and are rather irrelevant, especially before recent edits. The institution the page is based around is not an important part of the city or something frequently searched for and thereby is unworthy of having a Wikipedia article based upon it. Lastly, this article contains literally three lines of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free6om (talk • contribs) 05:11, 30 April 2013‎ (UTC)
 *  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep I would ask that some adm please either properly format this AfD discussion or just speedily close this, as being promotional really isn't a reason for an Afd and the article isn't. Also, schools are assumed to be notable.  I just really don't see what is going on here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all schools are assumed notable (that would be high schools, and even that is contested), and the OP is essentially saying WP:PROMOTION and WP:N without the fancy acronyms. It was a good faith attempt to bring the article to AfD (which can be complicated for a newcomer), so I completed it to help out—no need for speedy close. czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The nomination is still plausible, but looking at the article's edit history, perhaps I spoke too soon on the faith (though possibly its just the user's misunderstanding of how NPOV on WP works). I'm awaiting results at SPI. czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. AfD was incomplete as posted. I've filed the other steps on the author's behalf in good faith that they wanted this article to come to AfD, and not of my own wanting. czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  06:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not familiar with the Canadian school system so I can't say anything about notability. However, the current article is, in my opinion, not at all promotional: it's just a matter-of-fact list of facilities. Dricherby (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep I too know nothing about whether the school is notable, and it may indeed be deletable on those or other grounds. But my vote here is keep since the nom has thoroughly and completely failed to make their case that the article is promotional or written like an advertisement.  It simply isn't. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: it's now a standard stub article about a senior school and therefore assumed to be notable. The article has had an interesting history, including many attempts by the nominator to add a link to a personal website with commentary on the school, but it's now a neutral stub capable of sensible expansion. Pam  D  15:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been edited multiple times by myself and others to keep it in such a non-promotional manner. The article will be reset to its original format by its creator if left. Free6om (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then it can be edit protected. AfD is for deletion, not resolution of content disputes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. TerriersFan (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2013 (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.