Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JKF PREP/SDS

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 of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JKF PREP/SDS

Much of this is nonsense. A former school/building, apparently. Doesn't seem notable to me. Fagstein 19:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I could work on the article.Or there could be some mention of JKF PREP/SDS in the St. Nazianz, Wisconsin of the article about the Salvatorians.The title of the article is wrong:it should be JFK PREP/SDS-the school was renamed after John Kennedy.Thank you-RFD 19:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You'll need to assert some sort of notability (like press coverage or something) for the school for it to survive the deletion process. Fagstein 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep See Wikipedia:Schools: It is tempting for some people to set a bar of notability for schools, such as by age, size or press coverage. However, any such criteria have proven to be controversial. Thus, the only fitting criterion is how much verifiable, NPOV information can be found on the school. Verify it, wikify it, but don't delete it. --djrobgordon 21:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete unless it can be proven that it is going to reopen as a school. --InShaneee 22:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per djrobgordon. Rob T Firefly 02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, former school, per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 10:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 22:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs MAJOR cleanup. If not then delete it.Gateman1997 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete It's just slander. If you want to level something against the religious order (which was incorrectly named as a school) I suggest you back it up. I could dig up some old documents in my room about the order. But the founder was never accused of anything demonic or pervertive. He was only ever accused of misspending money and that allegation turned out to be false after an independant third party was told to investigate. His accuser was being spiteful.

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.