Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsmead Technology College

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. John254 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingsmead Technology College

Kingsmead Technology College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

nn high school, No Reliable sources exists even though I searched, nothing at google news nither, prod removed Delete Secret account 13:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep high schools or their equivalents are notable. RMHED (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per RMHED. Justin chat 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please, while high-schools are considered "notable", they need to have the Reliable sources first, if not, it should be deleted. Secret account 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep substantial high school, that is a specialist school as a technology college, that is notable for operating a sixth form on behalf of two other school and is part of a group of schools operating in an unusual collaboration with a college of further education. Despite what the nominator says, reliable sources are available and will be added progressively over the next day or two. TerriersFan (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • While sources has been added, one id a directory, one is a local news story, the regular website, and a passing mention, plus a borderline notable alumni, not convinced. Secret account 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. High schools are notable and it has been the subject of secondary independent sources like the BBC. --Oakshade (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Quite a well improved article, well sourced with multiple secondary and independent sources used, hence passes WP:N in my opinion. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: The article has at least one claim to notability: its Investor in People status. I'm not familiar with this award. I'm surprised to see so many citations for so many ordinary things: a name change, the appointment of a new deputy education director, an exchange program, being rated Satisfactory, a new gym and money for grounds, a play, absenteeism statistics, and so forth. It's hard to assume good faith for the addition of these sources, which appear to be added purely to inflate the apparent notability of the article. Still, the article has content and at least some kind of a claim, so I'd be reluctant to delete even if the award turned out to be as common as I suspect it is. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • While I didn't add sources to this article, I frequently do to other articles in AfDs to demonstrate notability of the topic. That is in no manner a bad faith effort. If there is evidence to support the notability of any topic, all editors should be aware of it. Editors should always be encouraged to improve any article at any time. Even Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion encourages improving an article during an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I always support improving articles, especially those in AfD. I just don't thinkthose things are notable or cite-worthy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:04, 15 December 2007 (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.