Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debates on the grammar school

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, though the article does need work, and nearly everyone admits. Wizardman 16:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debates on the grammar school

Debates on the grammar school (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article appears to be beyond saving. Original research from start to finish, no sources, references or any attributions. Full of bias and in no way keeps a neutral point of view. Fails all three of Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I would suggest a merge with Tripartite System, but the fact that none of this material is verified or neutral, leads me to suggest that it should be deleted. EJF (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is a very important topic relating to education in the UK. There are only 164 grammar schools left and the debate continues to this day about the merits or otherwise of what was originally conceived as a tripartite system but which was never properly implemented in the way that it was conceived. The article, although unsourced, does represent both sides of the debate quite fairly. The article should be improved and referenced not deleted. Dahliarose (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete maybe there is a potential for such an article to exist, but the problems here are so extreme I see no reasonable way to salvage it (per WP:RUBBISH). Anyone wishing to prove me wrong should start editing this article severely post-haste. -Verdatum (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. An interesting and relevant debate. Improve the article instead of deleting it. MikeHobday (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I thought that we had moved on from trying to delete articles because they are a mess. Plainly this page has multiple problems but the subject is important and encyclopaedic. It is still ongoing and recently almost split the Tories see here. Tagging for improvement is the way to go. I would add that sticking ((fact)) tags everywhere doesn't help either, it just makes the page hard to read - better to put the necessary tags at the top of the page. TerriersFan (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• String keep per Dahliarose and TerriersFan. The article could use some serious sourcing, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added a source to support two or three points. It's a start. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article may be bad, but the subject is encyclopaedic, and that is what AfD is meant to judge. This is a serious political issue in the UK, and a good article could be written here, even if this isn't it. Terraxos (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep WP:AFD is the wrong process to address the problems with this article, the correct process is WP:EDIT. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is an important debate. Those now using their energies to complain about lack of attribution should use those same energies to research the attributions(nobody knowledgeable about the subject would dispute the broad facts being debated, nor do I believe they are disputed. Referencing them is just a matter of hard slog). If the contentious and uncritical entry on, say 'ADHD', can survive unthreatened, then this certainly should. Could the objections have been raised by anti-selection dogmatists embarrassed by the weight of argument in favour of academic selection? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2008 (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.