Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radyr Comprehensive 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 keep.--Wizardman 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Radyr Comprehensive School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Secondary school, no reason given why this is notable. Lurker 18:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sports championship and several notables, backed up with multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources combine demonstrate notability. Reasons are given in current article as to why this school is notable. Alansohn 22:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notable alumni don't make a school notable, unless there are so many that the school becomes known for turning out notable people. The sports championship is something, but the article explains what sort of championship it is, it is not sufficient for notability. Was that a small local league championship or something of a notable scale? --Butseriouslyfolks 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is a large (by UK standards} Comprehensive School (High School in the US) that has overcome major structural problems to achieve creditable academic results see here with notable sporting achievements. I will incorporate this report into the article when I get a chance. TerriersFan 03:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article has now been radically improved with multiple references, and notability has been demonstrated. Dahliarose 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the community, the school is considered to have a first-class reputation does not confer notability. Lurker 14:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the multiple references, taken together, do - see WP:ORG. TerriersFan 16:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the community, the school is considered to have a first-class reputation does not confer notability. Lurker 14:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not a typical school-stub, has some notability per WP:SCHOOL criteria, reasonably well referenced. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per a "keep" vote above from a bully-admin who deletes good faith edits to articles. Zero tolerance for bully admins! Puppy Mill 00:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wtf? Care to explain your reasoning for deletion based on policy or guidelines rather than a veiled reference to something that appears unrelated to the article? John Vandenberg 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. How about this reasoning: High schools are, by definition, not encyclopedic and will never be encyclopedic. Unless someone can point to a high school which has ever appeared in a real print encyclopedia like World Book, Collier's, Encyclopedia Britannica, Funk & Wagnalls, etc., high schools will never IMO be encyclopedic. My delete !vote remains unchanged. Puppy Mill 02:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you look at Category:Schools and m:Wiki is not paper; and since you asked, check out [1]. John Vandenberg 03:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. How about this reasoning: High schools are, by definition, not encyclopedic and will never be encyclopedic. Unless someone can point to a high school which has ever appeared in a real print encyclopedia like World Book, Collier's, Encyclopedia Britannica, Funk & Wagnalls, etc., high schools will never IMO be encyclopedic. My delete !vote remains unchanged. Puppy Mill 02:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wtf? Care to explain your reasoning for deletion based on policy or guidelines rather than a veiled reference to something that appears unrelated to the article? John Vandenberg 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Got a scan of that same article from a print edition of Britannica? No? Puppy Mill 04:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The source is provided and your claim has been conclusively disproven. Alansohn 05:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Got a scan of that same article from a print edition of Britannica? No? Puppy Mill 04:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, plenty of google news archive results to expand the article; see this BBC article for a "controversy" that has lots of useful information about the school. John Vandenberg 01:52, 17 June 2007 (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.