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 SPEEDILY DELETED. This is pure CSD G1: insufficient context to expand. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one I so did not want to do, but I continue to be fool enough to proceed. Originally listed as speedy per A1 (empty). The article at that time was, and still remains, simply an infobox. The speedy tag was removed with no other explanation than “not a speedy” in the edit summary. With apologies and no intent to impute endorsement by Dpbsmith, I've applied the WP:BEEFSTEW test. The answer to every question is "no". Add to that the fact that schools are not inherently notable, WP:SCHOOLS did not pass and is not binding one way or another, and precedent is not supposed to apply, I'd say that this article has no encyclopedic value and must go. Agent 86 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Super Delete this school stuff is insane. Two-sentence stubs with info copied from the school's website is bad enough, but a naked infobox is not an article. Opabinia regalis 03:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, passes nothing. Michael 03:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Opabinia regalis. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if nothing else, because it's not a valid stub. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, just an info box for two weeks. Voice of Treason 07:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 07:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD-A1, empty article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as per Opabinia regalis. Schools can be notable, but the burden of proof rests with the article's author(s). Nothing but an infobox doesn't give us any proof of notability. Scorpiondollprincess 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and expand. If article is not expanded (I would do it myself, but have no knowledge or experience with Canada's school system), consider my input negated. The article's subject is a notable organisation, and as such it deserves an article. However, an infobox is most decidely not an article. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I see these nominations ended up listed on different "dates", but for the purposes of full disclosure I have also nominated Gander Academy for deletion (see discussion here). Agent 86 20:03, 19 July 2006 (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.