Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillsview Academy

: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 no consensus. There is no clear consensus to either keep or delete this article. The fact that, as some commenters outlined, this is a school that will very likely exist and become notable in a not-too-distant future is valid, as is the argument that it might be worth keeping and adding information from the two schools that are being merged. Some of the delete rationales are strong too. However, I'd like to point out that WP:CRYSTAL mostly applies to events and subjects where scarce information is the only available, which is not the case here. → Call me Hahc21 01:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

=[[Hillsview Academy]]=

:{{la|Hillsview Academy}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hillsview_Academy Stats])

:({{Find sources|Hillsview Academy}})

Too soon. While this may be able to meet notability guidelines once open, insufficient reliable sources are available to create a notable article at this time. RadioFan (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: In Sept 2014 this will become an important. Two schools will be closed and merged becoming this one- their histories will become sections of this article. In the complex political jungle to which UK education has descended it has become difficult to represent opening schools in a Wiki way. This stub seems a fair way to do it. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • :Comment Your statement that when things merge their articles have to become subsections of a new article is incorrect. If something was once notable, then it remains notable even if it ceases to exist or becomes part of some new entity. It would be appropriate to have articles about predecessor entities as well as an entity they were merged into. Edison (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - important high school being formed by the merger of two existing high schools. Consensus is that where there is a definite opening date such articles can be created within 12 months of that date. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment How is this important? Who is saying it's important? References would certainly help clear this up but as of now, there are no references in the article and I'm not finding any. The commonness of the name is making it difficult to locate references.--RadioFan (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:FUTURE says ...speculation about it must be well documented.... - this stubs needs lots of references to satisfy that. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Schools are generally deemed notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Removed !vote as misread schooloutcomes. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

:*Comment - sorry but this is not a valid deletion ground. WP:CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." and this is the case here. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment -- Strictly this is premature, but I assume that this a definite proposal, not a will of the wisp. Accoridngly the article will be needed soon. I do not therefore see why we should not keep it, probably merging in some of the content of the two preceding schools (which should also ul;timately be kept). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added sources to show that this merger will happen in the summer. A merger between two notable entitles to produce a high school with a sixth form will produce a clearly notable school. It makes no sense to delete the article only to recreate it in five months time. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

: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.