Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coombe Dean School (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 03:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coombe Dean School (2nd nomination)

Coombe Dean School (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. The text about Andrew Honywill is unsourced and should probably be removed; as such, it should certainly not be read as an assertion of notability. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence. Puerto De La Cruz 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a High School it is certainly more notable that the Primary Schools also up for deletion. The stats from the OFSTED web site show its existance outside the material put out by the School itself. The article does however need improvement and I hope this Afd attracts it. --Bduke 21:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, multiple non-trivial sources are cited in the article so it does meet WP:SCHOOL. Alternately, a merge to Plymouth per WP:LOCAL may be a reasonable compromise, although there is evidence in the article that this school is of more than local interest. JYolkowski // talk 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This one's pretty well cited for a school article. The Guardian is certainly a reliable source. Needs some cleanup, but that's not a valid reason to delete. Shimeru 05:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Awards, citations, this article is fine. Many of the recent schools noms do warrent deletion, but not this one. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Shimeru and HighInBC. I'm not convinced the mentioned awards are enough but they are definitely a start. JoshuaZ 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please take into account the potential of the article, as a wiki as stub has great potential. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Article was created in Feb 2005. It has had almost two years to meet "potential." If you can expand it and prove notability then do it. Saying someone in the future might be able to is not a reason to keep it. Offer sources. Arbusto 03:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), all the more egregious in this case, in which the original AfD failed by an overwhelming consensus of 19 keeps to seven deletes (if I counted correctly) 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, and in fact the school has been covered and article provides relevant references, 4) this is a high school, and we have near perfect precent for the retention of existing high schools with any non-trivial content, a standard that this article meets and exceeds, and 5) the teacher of the year award in 2004 granted by The Guardian (one of England's most prominent newspapers), meets criterion 5 set by WP:SCHOOL, which specifies that Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff., and as such, the article meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria. Alansohn 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alansohn.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now? — RJH (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentPrevious AfD was over a year ago. This hardly constitutes an example of repeated nominations. JoshuaZ 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above commenters, notability is demonstrated within the article sufficient to meet WP:SCHOOLS as currently proposed. Yamaguchi先生 22:35, 14 November 2006
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.