Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exeter School

Exeter School

This article, on one of the older schools in England, was speedy deleted by an admin with the cryptic reason "Poor excuse for an article... I'm tired of babysitting it". DRV overturned, as this reasoning is not with the CSD, among other things. I'm only guessing, but I presume the valid objection to the article was its lack of reliable sources. The matter is brought here for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as per comments here and below)~~Delete~~ The article is unsourced, but I get the impression from the article history that an editor has been faced with reverting a lot of vandalism. If someone would tell us that they're interested in keeping an eye on it, then I'd support keeping it. Lack of references also make it very unimpressive. Noroton 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the lack of references this is an interesting article about a school with a very long history. It has far more content than the vast majority of school articles. Vandalism is not a reason for deleting an article. Dahliarose 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean to say that there's no reason to delete an article if it is continually the subject of vandalism and usually an embarassment to Wikipedia while simultaneously annoying readers who are searching for information about the school? I guess we just disagree. Noroton 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I truly believe that this is a very notable school. It is probably much like Phillips Exeter Academy. However, until it is sourced it will not withstand an AFD challenge. It would be easy to wikify it. However, the only sources listed are the school itself. I would imagine a little work could get this past a WP:A challenge. However, in its current state, it must go. I would be more lenient if the page had not been created in 2004. For a 3 year old article, this level of sourcing is inexcusable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable (although rather less so than Phillips Exeter Academy); bad quality of writing and poor referencing are reasons for improvement, not reasons for deletion. — mholland 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not know about the quality of the article itself, but [1] does also say the school was founded in 1633. I am willing to accept that any school a couple of hundred years old should probably have an article. Lack of sources is an issue, but not one that convinces me deletion is warranted in this case. Mister.Manticore 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to delete - some tentative work has started by a couple of editors (inc. me) to raise the article up to standard. Weggie 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have it on your watch list? Are you interested enough in it to occasionally check it for vandalism? Or is someone else? Noroton 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on my watchlist. I will revert any vandalism within a reasonable time frame. I am not an admin however so will be pressing for semi-prot at the first act of vandalism (if and when..)Weggie 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)****Good enough for me. I changed my vote to "Keep" above. I just looked over the history of the article again, and maybe I misconstrued just how much vandalism was going on. You can also report vandals if you think that's necessary. Noroton 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per reasons above. It's getting better all the time. --Keefer4 | Talk 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has some issues but is notable and has plenty of potential. Frequent vandalism should not be a reason for deletion, instead article semi-protection or full-protection should be used. Camaron1 | Chris 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established in the article and references. PCock 20:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hugely notable with nearly 400 years of history. TerriersFan 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced OR per WP:A, although clearly passes WP:N. This would be a good job for Alansohn. Also, if vandalism were a valid reason for deletion, some guideline would so state, and we'd have to delete George Bush, Bob the Builder and other frequent targets. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have enough work to do!?!?! Looks like the needed work has been done already, anyway. Alansohn 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean no one is checking those articles and reverting deletions? Noroton 15:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.)DGG 08:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep School is clearly notable and issues with sourcing have been addressed. Bravo TerriersFan, et al, who have chipped in to improve the article. Alansohn 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*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. Mango juice^talk 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- 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. Mango juice^talk 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]