Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Link Community School

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 DELETE, BTW. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link Community School

Link Community School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

No assertion of notability. Spammy copyvio from here as well. Húsönd 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Most schools wouldn't pass WP:N and nothing indicates this one is an exception. Lexis-Nexis shows a handful of passing mentions. Didn't wade through all the 213 unique Google hits but the first few are directory-type entries, nothing we could use to write a WP article. Pan Dan 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well written and meets WP:SCHOOLS criteria for inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • (Comment) WP:SCHOOLS has been labelled "rejected," but anyway, how does Link meet WP:SCHOOLS? Pan Dan 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above keep votes.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's just one.--Húsönd 17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well written and notable for the community in which it is in. Reads a little too much like advertising, but editing is the answer for that, not deletion. Caper13 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete absolutely no reason why it should be considered notable except those applying to all schools indiscriminatelyDGG 02:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy as copyvio from school's own website even going back to the earliest versions in the wiki page history. That would explain why it's well written. Tagged the article. DMacks 06:46, 26 January 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.