Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bulmershe School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 21:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Bulmershe School

The claim to fame of this comprehensive school is that it has a headmaster. Dunc|☺ 17:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a stub article - hence it does not have much information. Is it Wikipedia policy to delete stub articles? Ian Cairns 18:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As noted in the entry above, per Wikipedia:Schools:
A one sentence stub does not help anyone.
Do not unmerge or split out school stubs, unless you simultaneously expand the school article with verifiable information, so that it's no longer a stub.
Short, uninformative school articles may be merged by someone being bold. The relevant articles should generally not be unmerged unless expanded.
--Tabor 19:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That page has no authority. It is merely a discussion page set up by a deletionist. Oliver Chettle 18:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it is a valid stub so allow for organic growth Yuckfoo 18:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Woodley or a local school district article if one exists. If it expands significantly before end of VfD, keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the appropriate geographic article to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 23:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is clearly somewhat more than a mere one-sentence stub. If merged, its LEA is Wokingham. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's been expanded significantly since nomination. Unfocused 00:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • BTW, thanks for the work expanding it, Yuckfoo! --Unfocused 00:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Thanks, I didn't check to see if it had been expanded. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above - Ian Cairns 23:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep expanded version is coming along nicely. --Unfocused 00:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, all school articles have vast potential for expansion and this one is no different. --Bahn Mi 00:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • See WP:AN/I. This is a suspected sock of User:GRider, who is banned from VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as expanded. Vegaswikian 06:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per what others have said -CunningLinguist 06:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the general consensus. —RaD Man (talk) 16:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, very few schools have potential for expansion to anything meaningful. RickK 21:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How is it special as compared to any other school? No evidence of notability demonstrated. —Lowellian (talk) 13:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep That is irrelevant. All schools should be kept. Oliver Chettle 18:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. WP:SCH DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Verifable, encyclopedic institution. VFD is not cleanup. Keep. --Centauri 04:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Woodley and delete - Skysmith 09:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Woodley and delete. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. The Local Education Authority is Wokingham, so it's probably better to merge there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relevant. --Ian Pitchford 19:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.