Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayflower Primary School (2nd nomination)

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. --Core desat 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayflower Primary School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. The closest thing that I can find to an assertion of notability is that a member of parliament attended the grand opening. Claims to be very old but was opened in 1979. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence. Puerto De La Cruz 19:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article has some content and weak claim to notability, in the form of awards won. Could use some independent third part sources such as press coverage of notability. Edison 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable, good article. JYolkowski // talk 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, claims to be "one of the oldest primary schools" in its town, which could very well be true, seeing that the locality in question is fairly recently established and somewhat small. This claim should be sourced, though, and isn't. There are other claims that could make it noteworthy if sourced -- but they aren't. No vote for now, though; willing to see whether someone can turn up those sources. Shimeru 06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, they did. Shimeru 20:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, and 4) This is a large school (over 2,300 students) that offers a wide array of programs, structures and techniques as part of its curriculum (among other such unique programs, information re Project Carlos Santana will be added to article) article meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria. Alansohn 13:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant awards have been bestowed upon the school's staff, per information and sources added to article. Accurizer 15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please per above and looks like bad faith nomination Yuckfoo 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple awards won by both staff and students, thereby satisfying WP:SCHOOLS3. -- Kicking222 22:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Seeing as how this is a multiple award winning school, and the article was nominated for deletion by a disruptive sockpuppet I am not opposed to a speedy keep closure. Silensor 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and per sockpuppet. JROBBO 13:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. — RJH (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentPrevious AfD was over a year ago. This hardly constitutes an example of repeated nominations. JoshuaZ 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a result of multiple awards won by staff and students, satisfying the WP:SCHOOLS guideline as proposed. Yamaguchi先生 22:45, 14 November 2006
Speedy Keep per lets keep socks off AfD. --JJay 02:57, 15 November 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.