Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School Street School
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 06:19, 26 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (2x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 06:19, 26 March 2023 by Legobot (talk | contribs) (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (2x))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 speedy keep as obviously notable. Non-admin closure. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 22:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- School Street School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Five years without any additional information besides the name and location of the building and its addition date to the NRHP list. Not enough information to create an encyclopedically useful article. MSJapan (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. A building on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places? Please see WP:BEFORE. Cindy(need help?) 21:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and I already found nomination information to expand it with (and that's not even the main listing, which should have more references). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on NRHP. Swampyank (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This was clearly notable when it was nominated, nomination did not state a valid basis for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. — Joaquin008 (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As all have said above, it's clearly notable due to its listing on the Register. Ducknish (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2013 (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.