Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Patrick's Sports Academy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 keep. No reason for deletion has been provided. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- St Patrick's Sports Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Strong Keep - Article is reliably and independently sourced with all major assertions supported. This appears a premature AfD nomination, with no attempt at fixing issues by other means (see WP:BEFORE); nominator User:Kizzyb2018 has not tried to engage with other editors via the article Talk Page or with significant contributors via their Talk pages. The rationale for the AfD (according to edit summary) of "Inaccuracies , prejudicial, links not permitted" could have been discussed before resorting to AfD - what inaccuracies? what is prejudicial (presumably non-NPOV)? and what links are not permitted? Paul W (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep – The account Kizzyb2018 (contribs | filter log) is not even a day old and all four of its edit have been geared toward removing any mention of the sexual abuse scandal, this AfD included. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 18:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Very well sourced, abuse scandal is notable. May not be pleasant, but so long as it's NPOV, it should stay. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. No rationale given by nominator; amply and reliably sourced. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2022 (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.