Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop of Llandaff Church in Wales High School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 ... let me count...1, 2, 3, 4, 5......Uh... (16 keep, 4 delete, 5 merge) no consensus, leaning to keep. - Mailer Diablo 20:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop of Llandaff Church in Wales High School[edit]

Note:: Please vote based on the article itself, and not on the subject matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 November 2005


I don't know if this will get an entry. Being a high school and all

  • Delete non-notable school Bwithh 01:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - more or less as notable as the hundreds of schools here and elsewhere. /Ezeu 07:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear past precedent to keep high schools (middle schools and elementary schools are more controversial) and this article is as good as any of the other stubs. Being an independant school it is a bit difficult to find a suitable merge target. See discussion on this hot topic at Wikipedia:Schools and its talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's wrong with Llandaff? That's the natural place to look for it in a British context, and it's also exactly what Wikipedia:Schools actually suggests ("other higher-level article such as city [...] if private". The wording is US-centric, and in Britain a "city" is a much more specific thing, but the meaning is clearly that the town the school is in is an appropriate merge target.) — Haeleth Talk 22:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I think Sjakkalle is stretching things a little with "clear consensus to keep" - actually the clear consensus was to stop the endless sterile wars caused by consistent failure to achieve consensus. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ezeu. No, I'm not misreading. Another high school like the rest - a bog-standard comprehensive, to quote Blair. --Last Malthusian 09:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, just another high school like the rest. But why is this particular school less important than the others? – that is the essence of my comment. We need some consistency, not just haphazard preference of one article over the other. If I knew any, I too would evoke a political buzzword to support my point, but precedence is (probably) the only viable "afd" argument, given that one can use almost any claim to support ones position. That there are hundreds of other high schools on wikipedia is a viable argument to keep this one. / Ezeu 18:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly less important than Eton College and Llandaff Cathedral School. I'm shocked that there's no article on the latter. Chris talk back 15:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Llandaff. Doesn't contain enough useful information to be its own article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Look at this article. I am not voting on the topic (esp. since I generally think independent/private schools can be legitimate topics) but the article. Please vote this particular one. It begins with <--TEMPLATE END. It only says that it's a school and that it's co-ed and then where it is. This is not an article. If it were an article, and if it said something about the school, I'd probably vote to keep. Geogre 11:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Rhollenton 12:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hopefully some past or present students will expand on the article one day. Would make a nice project for a writing class. --StuffOfInterest 13:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want to be stuck with a horrendous substub until that happens? I'm pretty sure anyone attending the school doesn't need the info from this "article" to write up something better. We don't keep nonsense pages on legitimate subjects either with the idea it can be cleaned up. - Mgm|(talk) 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely inviting (ex-)students to write about their own school because no-one else will violates WP:NOR and WP:V? NOR: "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources." Relying on a school's own website for data is bad enough. Relying on someone coming here, claiming they're a student and letting them add information is much, much worse. We wouldn't let someone claiming to be an article's subject write about himself if he didn't back up his claims, or let someone claiming to be an ex-Scientologist write new claims about the "church". --Last Malthusian 13:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not (much) worse than a lot of other school articles here, though it certainly needs work done on it. Rhion 13:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#KeepHipocrite - «Talk» 15:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn welsh school Catchpole 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Even Welsh ones. And stop nominating them. And please have this discussion over at WP:SCH not here day after day on AfD. AndyJones 17:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a verifiable school that needs some expanding. Also, please sign things if you are going to add them to the top of the page (the "Note" was not from the original (unsigned) nominator). I'll assume good faith by guessing the nominator is not aware of the current school controversy. Shame to keep cluttering up AfD like this though. Turnstep 17:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Hipocrite. Banes 20:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and keep - per precedent. The article is in dire need of a rewrite. 147.70.242.21 22:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Llandaff per WP:SCH; alternatively, if anyone expands the article to include sufficient verifiable content to pass the proposed bar (three full sentences, verifiable from sources not published by the school itself, and presenting information that is not "phonebook"-style location/contact details, or otherwise obvious from the article's title), then it should be kept.

    WP:SCH, WP:SCH, WP:SCH. It's a good proposal. It solves the obvious problem of school substubs while still satisfying reasonable inclusionists. Let's use it. — Haeleth Talk 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and please do not nominate these any more Yuckfoo 01:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep place of education is notable.--MONGO 03:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please join us at Wikipedia Talk:Schools and help create a policy regarding school articles. Denni ☯ 03:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep.  ALKIVAR™ 23:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why are we voting on the article itself instead of the subject matter? Given that Wiki is a collaborative project, we should be voting on the subject matter. An article can always be improved. Per Wikipedia philosophy: Eventualism :). Zordrac 01:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes the assumption that it will be. The reality is that it probably won't be. Denni ☯ 01:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is not notable --redstucco 09:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per precedent for keeping high schools. Peachlette 10:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Organic growth is a property of living organisms, not something an encyclopaedia article can posess. Chris talk back 15:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with higher order article per WP:SCH proposal which this currently fails.Gateman1997 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verified and encyclopedic. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bishop_of_Llandaff_Church_in_Wales_High_School&oldid=1137624163"