Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worcestershire schools performance table


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire schools performance table

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

Contested PROD following a previous Speedy deletion an hour or so previously. A similar article has already been discussed and deleted (see Articles for deletion/Worcestershire schools. However, this article is sufficiently different to not be a G4. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sometimes it's so obvious it's hard to find a matching policy. WP:NOT (Long and sprawling lists of statistics...) in connection with extremely local focus and ephemeral, already outdated, time period of this, so to say, data.  8%. Dissapointing. NVO (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - this provide's usefull information on all the schools in county, this the 2nd one 2 web pages that has this information and its normaly hard to get! liispa809 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.148.189 (talk • contribs) 00:34, January 2, 2009
 * Keep! Why get rid of this? its got no speling mistakes and has correct information. cxal3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.148.189 (talk • contribs) 00:36, January 2, 2009
 * Keep. I have children at a school in worcestershire and it realy helps us parents find out how the schools are performing. i would even reccomend this page to other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.148.189 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Just a note that User:81.159.148.189 placed the three !votes above (I have struck out two of them but left the comments) and in doing so removed the header to the page, the nomination and !vote by NVO. Consequently, I have done a little reworking to put everything back together again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above, and my original prod. As an aside, User:81.159.148.189 seems to be a busy bee on certain pages.  --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Interesting that User:81.159.148.189 has edited the same range of pages as User:Random809 the author of this article and the previous one. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonencyclopedic. No specific source given, but there probably is one, and its probably on the web also, and a link to it could be put in a more general article. DGG (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete under WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and my original speedy for a previous incarnation). I would rate the spelling of User:Random809 and User:81.159.148.189 as equally 'dissapointing'.  TrulyBlue (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I've dunn a majur cleenupp of da artickle so datt it's in tabuls. I've allso tryed to mayk teh spelingg betre! flaminglawyerc 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Neat job, FL! Information of this sort could usefully be merged into the articles of the respective schools, perhaps formatted in a different way (though I have difficulty in finding the source of this data). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The original comments give a hoax feeling to this discussion. I see nothing notable here, at any rate. --Stormbay (talk) 01:21, 5 January 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.