Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exeter School: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Mangojuice (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Mangojuice (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 22:
*'''Strong keep''' even those few arguing for deletion admit the school is notable. There is no serious question that it is sourceable, and we do not delete obviously verifiable articles for lack of sources. The effort used to delete it would have been better used to source it. (And a speedy seems altogether irresponsible.)'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 08:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' School is clearly notable and issues with sourcing have been addressed. Bravo [[User:TerriersFan|TerriersFan]], et al, who have chipped in to improve the article. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
<s>*'''Delete,''' per sourcing concerns. I tried pretty hard myself to locate some sources on this school: we'd figure if it was founded in 1633 there would be some, right? But I really couldn't find much. If all we can source is that the school was founded in 1633 and later changed its name, it's really not enough. Perhaps there is a book on the history of the school somewhere, or maybe a chapter in a book about Exeter? So those of you saying there are no sourcing concerns, I have one. This school is very old... but not everything created in 1633 has struck people as worth writing about. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)</s>
**'''Keep.''' Okay, wow. I should remember to reread the article before saying stuff. The above was based on the state when the article was deleted, back when I commented at the deletion review. Things are much better now. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
| |||