Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sir William Stanier School: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:57, 21 September 2020 editAdamant1 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,341 edits Added delete← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:32, 21 September 2020 edit undoStifle (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,990 edits →Sir William Stanier School: Closed as delete (XFDcloser)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
⚫	===]===
			:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
	{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|O}}
			<!--Template:Afd top

			Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

			The result was '''delete'''. I have given lower weight to the arguments which are based on the suggestion that schools are inherently notable and other similar articles exist, and to those alleging that sources are available without making any effort to provide them. ] (]) 11:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
		⚫	===]===
	<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>		<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
	:{{la\|Sir William Stanier School}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)		:{{la\|Sir William Stanier School}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
Line 20:		Line 25:
	*'''Delete''' Fails ] and ]. Created in 2007 by a ], the article lacks ] demonstrating any widespread or lasting notability. Has only routine, ] coverage. ] (]) 19:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)		*'''Delete''' Fails ] and ]. Created in 2007 by a ], the article lacks ] demonstrating any widespread or lasting notability. Has only routine, ] coverage. ] (]) 19:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Delete''' secondary schools aren't presumed to be notable and this one lacks the significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources required by ] and ]. --] (]) 06:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)		*'''Delete''' secondary schools aren't presumed to be notable and this one lacks the significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources required by ] and ]. --] (]) 06:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
			{{clear}}
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 11:32, 21 September 2020

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. I have given lower weight to the arguments which are based on the suggestion that schools are inherently notable and other similar articles exist, and to those alleging that sources are available without making any effort to provide them. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sir William Stanier School

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can’t find anything that suggests notability, fails WP:GNG. Devokewater (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Devokewater (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Devokewater (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Devokewater (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Devokewater (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

'Delete' has no reliable source of information. Personal Websites are not reliable source of informationAuthor Sanju (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep. There are plenty of sources, just as there are for any secondary school in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep: As per the above, there are plenty of references available, esp. in Google News. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment Actually WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#3 confirms that Secondary schools are no longer assumed as notable without refs, as per any WP:ORG. I would argue that the Chronicle article is WP:Basic enough to show notability of the schools origins - there is plenty more news stories, especially about poor attainment and being in requiring improvement since 2016 - WP:Before - I therefore would say Keep with work.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep An educational institute must not be deleted. There are a number of schools articles on Misplaced Pages which are not even referenced a single resource but passes notability. Priyanjali singh (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep: Agreed! An educational institute should not be deleted. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete Schools are not inherently notable. They need to pass GNG and Priyanjali singh such articles often get unnoticed, and "they do not pass notability". You should try WP:BEFORE regarding such schools, and if you find significant coverage, then source the article - otherwise get them AfDed. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says it clearly that "At one time, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG.". Now that's 3 years before. A school, "secondary school" failing GNG doesn't deserve a place here. ─ The Aafī () 04:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete: Article does not pass GNG or NORG. Sources in the article do not establish notability and BEFORE showed only routine, run of the mill coverage. Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The Keep votes above simply state references exist, but fail to provide any at all, or explain why the school is notable. The lack of providing sources above shows the sources do not exist, if they did they would be listed especially if there were plenty as is claimed. // Timothy :: talk 00:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Created in 2007 by a WP:SPA, the article lacks WP:SIGCOV demonstrating any widespread or lasting notability. Has only routine, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL coverage. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete secondary schools aren't presumed to be notable and this one lacks the significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources required by WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2020 (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.