Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heathcote 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 of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is one of 2 new pages created by a new editor (the other was a two sentence biographical entry about a non-notable individual, which was speedily deleted). The page started out as an unverified stub article about a school, but now includes several lines of nonsense and what is probably an attack on one of the pupils. If someone is willing to identify sources, support the article's notability, and edit it to a point where it can be salvaged, then it might be worth keeping. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Road Wizard 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Road Wizard 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an attack, a hoax (unless it was real), and {{nonsense}} altogether. --Slgrandson 00:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please it is notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to back up the statement about "Samuel Bardsley" you have left in the article? That was the one I was thinking was perhaps an attack on a current pupil, as I can't verify anyone notable of that name linked to the school. I will remove the statement as a temporary measure. Road Wizard 01:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if the article isn't an attack, or a hoax, or nonsense, it would still be non-notable. -- Kicking222 01:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Schools are notable. --Myles Long 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and expand. Since it's independent, my usual "merge to a district article" won't work, so I guess I'll have to say keep despite my concerns about the notability of primary schools. BryanG^(talk) 20:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The hoax and attack stuff has to be kept off, but the article itself merits a keep and expand. Interlingua ^talk 22:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it seems that Marty Feldman is a verifiable graduate as well. Yamaguchi先生 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Marty Feldman seems to make this a valid keep.  ALKIVAR™ 00:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCH. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2006 (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.