Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priory Community 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 07:13Z

[edit] Priory Community School

Priory Community School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested PROD, also there were copyright issues, and one user in particular is being pretty harassing about this whole issue. Yanksox 18:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree with Thomas here. Being a student at Priory School (not taking sides) I beleve that everyone should have a chance to improve the article. Ok there maybe some problems with copyright, thats fine to take off it but there is no need to delete all of it for the sake of a few copyright issues R27smith200245 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - While I personally don't agree with the idea that every secondary school is inherently notable, there seems to be a consensus that they are, and I don't find an argument that we should delete a page because of the actions of someone who's opposed to deletion particularly compelling. On the other hand, looking over the talk page I think it would be helpful to point these people to Wikia, if it will prevent them from trying to turn this article into their school's private wiki. Geoffrey Spear 20:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • See, the issue with schools being inherently notable is through their very existance. Herein lies a problem. I exist, I am pretty productive irl, I'm an admin on Wikipedia, do I garner an article? And if so, I demand that someone here writes it. Flatter me, please. </bad humor> Yanksox 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete. There are secondary schools that are notable. There are others which are not. The only thing possibly notable here is the good results on a standardized exam. If that is to be a criterion, let us get the list, and start adding from the top and eliminating from the bottom. In any case, even that is unsourced.DGG 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Where are the multiple third-party sources? —Centrx→talk • 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• KeepWhen i made the page, i only made it as to inform people of our school and to give people information about it. Other schools have articles so why shouldnt we, if you gave us a chance to build it up yanksox instead of deleting something everytime its put up there, perhaps the article could become a much better one. in a democratic world we do not work off one mans opinion, we work on the factor that if someone wants something to be seen or heard, they are given this opportunity, they are not told to back down. I feel we should be given a chance to build up the article before you delete it.Thomas Murlis 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:SCHOOL. Independent sources? Edison 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A brief search reveals the school was notable enough to be the subject of an Open University course module, and at least one research paper. I've added the details to the article, and intend to keep a critical eye on it. Eludium-q36 18:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth, further research indicates that this does pass WP:SCHOOL muster. Bahn Mi 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the meantime. Is this school by itself or is it part of a larger group of schools? It looks like its own entity. Mazin07^C₪_T 21:23, 21 December 2006 (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.