Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morrison Academy

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 speedy keep. This is somewhat confusing but I’m going to close this as 'speedy keep' citing WP:SKCRIT#1: Absence of delete rationale. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Academy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should not be deleted.

The fact that this article is considered for deletion is somewhat confusing: no justification has been given for deletion at all, and, to my knowledge, all ongoing issues have been discussed extensively in the talk page, in which there has been consensus between the two main disputants (i.e., CensoredDog and Huon) to seek Dispute Resolution. Furthermore, ongoing discussion has only lasted 4 days, from March 7 to March 11, 2019.

Additionally, there is an apparent inconsistency between the treatment of this article and that of Morrison Academy's other campus in Kaohsiung. If Morrison Academy Kaohsiung's article stays, then the Morrison Academy article, which is about the original campus, should also stay.

On my view, every article--even those about schools--should remain open to different views. A caveat has been inserted on this page before that this article is written like an advertisement. Yet, upon the insertion of certain sections and passages whose content may be controversial (i.e., the school's stance not to condone certain issues of LGBT or divorce as well as its affirmation in a science curriculum that God is the creator of the universe), content that refers to reliable (absent further objections) primary and secondary sources, and that has not been proven to put undue weight, there has been resistance. Now, rather than considering improving this article, some user(s) are attempting to get it deleted for no apparent reason. This seems nonsensical to say the least.

CensoredDog (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC) CensoredDog (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CensoredDog, GB fan, and Blueboar: I'm a bit confused. GB fan nominated the page for deletion, and then blueboar reverted adding the AfD template because the AfD page hadn't been created. It now exists (here), but only contains CensoredDog advocating that the article be kept. What is supposed to be happening? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DannyS712, you got things a little backwards. Blueboar added the AFD template to the article. About an hour after the template was added CensoredDog created this with an explanation of why the article should not be deleted. About an hour later I removed the template because Blueboar had not explained why the article should be deleted nor listed it on the AFD log. This page wasn't created correctly. If it was fixed with the proper templates and listed it would be quickly closed because there is nothing on it that advocates deletion. What needs to happen is up to anyone who wants to advocate for deletion. If no one wants to put forward a case for deletion then this can probably be deleted. ~ GB fan 00:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: sorry for messing up the timeline; thanks for explaining. Blueboar do you still think this should be deleted? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies as well... I got called away from my desk with real life work issues half way through the nom formulation process, and I still don’t have time to explain my rational (why I think the topic is non-notable). Just ignore the current nom and I will re-nominate when I am less busy. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This nomination was never actually listed on a daily logpage, and it was never closed; it is therefore technically still open, even though it was created in 2019.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the above discussion (no argument was ever made for deletion, and nominator planned to withdraw the AfD but never got around to it). jp×g 03:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Taiwan. jp×g 03:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy" keep. Three years is long enough for this discussion. St Anselm (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.