Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Catholic School: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Walton One (talk | contribs) |
→[[Trinity Catholic School]]: reply to Walton, delete due to failure of WP:N, and comment on the title |
||
Line 6:
*'''Delete''', [[WP:SCHOOL]], [[WP:V]]. [[User:Terence Ong|Terence Ong]] 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - [[WP:SCHOOL]] is not actually a current policy (as it was not adopted). Although I agree that school articles ought to show evidence of notability, most schools do have their own articles at present, and it would seem unfair to deny an article to this one. And there's a substantial body of Wikipedians who argue that schools are inherently notable (although I'm not among them). [[User:Walton monarchist89|Walton monarchist89]] 19:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
**Looking at [[Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools_for_deletion_archive]], a number of school articles have been deleted due to failure of [[WP:N]]. Also, I have prodded a number of school articles whose deletions went through uncontested. If this school article is deleted, it won't be alone at all. (By the way, I doubt very much that most schools have their own articles.) [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' because there is no sign of non-trivial external [[WP:N|coverage]] which we could use to write a Wikipedia article. Checked [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22trinity+catholic+school%22+lewiston&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Google news archives] and even ''local'' papers in Lexis-Nexis. This is not a surprise though, because most schools wouldn't pass WP:N. [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If kept, should be moved to [[Trinity Catholic School (Lewiston)]] and the redirect either deleted or made into a disambiguation page, as there appear to be others. [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
| |||