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 speedy keep, sorry to cut short the hilarity. Melchoir 18:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This article is too biased, and it is poorly formatted, to the point that I believe that it is a lost cause. For example, the following line is of concern to me: "The academic program holds a strong reputation". I'll ask but one question, WHO'S OPINION IS IT THAT THE ACADEMIC PROGRAM IS GOOD? There is no indication as to where this 'strong reputation' originated. Also, the article is badly formatted, and feels more like dot points. If a proper article cannot be produced, none at all deserves to be on this site. I vote for STRONG DELETE 19748 08:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reasons given are no reason to delete article. Should be rewritten, yes. --Nlu (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Your reasons do not make it as lost cause, if there even is such a thing on here, as it is notable. Also, may I welcome 19748, Briagalong and Darth nib23 who all joined today! By chance, their first edits were voting delete at this afd... :). It is an obvious bad faith nomination, it is probably the same fellow who afd'd it last time, anyway, the use of suckpuppets is very obvious here. Cvene64 12:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have shown a group of people across the internet community this horrid display blemishing wikipedia. We have banded together to bring down this absolute rubbish of an article, and restore normality to wikipedia. I am not guilty of deceptions, merely showing the community the horrid side to this site. It must be purified. - --19748 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reasons show that the article could be improved, but nt that it should be deleted. There are quite a few high standard school entries that we, really, should be trying to emulate across the board rather than deleting some on a whim. Jpeob 11:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Nlu, it really does not warrant deletion but rather clean up.Rcm 12:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I just looked at the page in more detail. It doesn't even look like it has obvious POV...it's quite non-existent, really. there's my 2 cents, anyway.Rcm 12:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This page is not a lost cause. It should be kept. I agree with rcm, it should just improved.Tjpob 09:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only thing this article might need is a cleanup.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.253.46 (talk • contribs)

I have cleaned up the article - removing unsubstantiated statements and bias. See my changes and then decide whether it should be deleted. I think it can be improved and cleaned up - as I've just endeavoured to do. Maybe more can help. Cheers (I've already voted) - Jpeob 10:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no valid reason for deletion. Cvene64 is correct, Heal the world-iddly-orld, Tattoo678, Snake eyes!, 19748, Pulsar vectram, Darth nib23, Briagalong, Marksman prime have all only voted here or made user pages to date. Obvious use of sock-puppetry and reemphasises the belief of a bad faith nomination. --Bob 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article is at a decent start, 19748's sockpuppet campaign notwithstanding ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Correct me if I'm wrong, but I belive that what I'm doing is called 'meatpuppetry' and that there is nothing wrong with it. All these people are fighters. I don't know them personally, but we intend to sweep through wikipedia purging it of all its greivances and blemishes. we are the purifiers, and we have banded together. As for the user page scandal devised by Cvene64 to bring us down, we want to use other's templates only, to further our pages. There is no law against that, but we haven't yet started to change the pages to our own designs because of this little scandal. Wikipedia states that you must not assume that a person is a sock puppet before you assume that they are a meatpuppet which is a group of people who combine to bring a page down. These are not single use accounts. We are all new here, and we are in a group so that we can defend ourselves from people who are out to be a detriment. We intend to grow and expand our horizons on this site, but this is our first crusade. We will purify the site of this page. We will not be accused of 'sock puppetry' as we are individuals who are fighting as one to destroy and neutralize this pathetic page. --19748 01:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. No legitimate dispute here. -- FRCP11 08:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. If you think the article is biased, add a NPOV tag. If you think the article is badly formatted, add a cleanup tag. This is a bad faith nomination. --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Guys if you dont like a page EDIT it, AFAIK this is a legit school so there seems to be no reason to delete the page Soundabuser 04:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. As much as I dislike this trend of every-school-gets-an-article, it's a Wikipedia standard and the article (though perhaps requiring cleanup) has been nominated incorrectly. Assuming good faith despite all odds, I remain. -- Docether 17:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedu keep ignoring any contentions about school notability, etc... this should never have even been brought to AfD. BJAODN this discussion though... hilarious.--Isotope23 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEW NOTE TO ADMIN: WE ARE NOT SOCK PUPPETS. NO ONE IS LISTENING. WE ARE NOT FABRICATING USER PAGES, WE ARE BORROWING TEMPLATES. WE ARE WHAT WIKIPEDIA CALLS 'MEATPUPPETS' AND WE ARE PROUD OF IT. WE HAVE BANDED TOGETHER, AND EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE EXPLAINED THIS TO EVERYONE THEY STILL ACCUSE US OF SOCKPUPPETRY. THAT TERM IS DEGRADING AND OFFENSIVE. WIKIPEDIA LAW DICTATES THAT A USER MUST FIRST BE ASSUMED A MEAT PUPPET BEFORE THEY ARE ASSUMED A SOCK PUPPET. WE ARE FIRST TIME USERS, YES, BUT WE ARE INDIVIDUALS NONE THE LESS. WE ARE MEAT PUPPETS, AND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED LIKE A BUNCH OF CYBER CLONES— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.20.178 (talk • contribs)

• I agree. Reasons for keep sketchy to say the least. Delete --Briagalong 08:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have done some investigating and read this page's old deletion page. It had some good points, especially bias, and now the article looks really bad. I think it's pointless to keep the article. --Darth nib23 09:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Pulsar vectram 07:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete because this article has obviously been 'whipped' together for no other purpose than to serve as a space holder until a decent version arrives. Until someone actually bothers to give this article a thought, it must be deleted. --Marksman prime 07:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying that the article needs improvement, and it should also be deleted. Do you realise that deleting the article means that it won't be there to be improved? --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article doesn't need a clean-up, it needs restructuring. MAJOR restructuring. and until a half-decent article can be put together, there shouldn't be an article like this on wikipedia. it serves only as a blemish. --Snake eyes! 07:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying that the article needs improvement, and it should also be deleted. Do you realise that deleting the article means that it won't be there to be improved? --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above arguments. Poor formatting; bias. --Tattoo678 07:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Poor formatting? Where? --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of strong POV in the article. example: "each Year Eight and Nine class is assigned a group of year 12 students to act as form seniors, who participate in class activities and act as friends and role models as well as easing the transition into (for 140 boys) a new school and then into the upper school." WHO said that they are friends and role models? This is just opinion. On wikipedia, WE NEED FACTS. assumptions just don't cut it. A little statistic or word changing ain't gonna be enough. A delete is required. also, per above. --Heal the world-iddly-orld 12:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a greivance with one sentence, so therefore the entire article must be deleted. If that one sentence is such a problem, then why not correct it yourself, or simply add a NPOV tag? --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To the above user(s?), creating a funky userpage doesnt fool anyone, a simple click and I can see that your a brand new user, and have only voted to delete this. I'm not sure any of the above delete votes are *real*. I would not be be crazy to say this guy has created eight accounts, then copied someones userpage to make him look like an established member...sigh..Cvene64 12:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to add... that the treatment that the purifying league (the eight of us(the number is growing)) has received is disgusting. I am happy to be helping my fellow leaguers neutralize this page's signal. This page is horriblé to say the least. C'est merde! Je deteste la pagé! Anyway, you can't discard our opinions with your big blaring banner at the top of the page, because we have come forward with good points!!! for example, bias, poor formatting, limited references, and these factors are reasons why this poor performance should be deleted. it has obviously been whipped together like 19748 has poignantly said. We are not going to bow down to personal attacks and accusations of meat puppetry. we are individuals, and demand to be treated as such, not as a group of cyber-clones!!! --Marksman prime 04:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You have come forth with plenty of exclamation marks. That does not mean that you have good points. --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete you accuse US the purifiers of ballott stuffing, when it is you that is committing the act. as a devoted member of the brotherhood of purifiers, it is my duty to add to this honourable crusade to neutralise this pages signal. You all think this is some sort of 'bandwagon' right? WRONGWRONGWRONGWRONG. This ain't no bandwagon. I think this article is bias in several sentences which have been IGNORED. Now, I don't know about the school to actually change the article, and that is why it must be deleted. everyone keeps saying 'it must be cleaned up, it must be edited', but they are not doing anything about the article!!! If everyone wants it to stay, DO SOMETHING I am a member of the brotherhood of purifiers and am also an individual. I consider this article 'purifiable'. --Shaanxiquake 09:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Delete Brothers of purification, I agree with this crusade. The purgatory must be enacted. NUM QUAM POSTEA! No more will this article blemish the site. My other brothers have jumped the gun and told you they want it to be deleted. Let me outline WHY:

• 1. The article is clearly bias. There is no doubt about it.
• 2. The article looks like a note point summary of some kind. Wikipedia IS NOT about note point summaries.
• 3. The populous are accusing the BP (Brotherhood of Purification) of not acting and changing the article. As Brother Shaanxiquake said, we know nothing about the school! I am from Bahrain! Why doesn't the populous change the article? Let me guess, the article is incorrect so this AFD was instigated. Now everyone in the populous is going to argue to bring the BP down, saying that the BP should fix the page. When the AFD is finally removed, the article WILL NOT HAVE CHANGED ONE BIT, and it will continue to be a blemish. The BP is bringing forward incredibly valid points. If no one will fix the article, it must by neutralized. The site must be purified.

It is in this vein that I call all the bretheren of the Brotherhood of Purification (the number is growing) to merge as one and yet retain their unique individuality, to bring down this pathetic page which obviously has some sort of fan base from the school itself. Don't pretend you weren't from the school, populous! I've looked at members' of the populous userpages, and they mention this school as part of their education! This is obviously some sort of school push, but it will not be tolerated. Wikipedia does not accept people FROM THE SCHOOL spreading lies and deceptions, or even more importantly defending an article worthy of nothing. The Brotherhood of Purification will see to it that this pathetic display is neutralized forever, because it serves no purpose and people continually whine for others to fix it, and no one does. --Purification 09:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obvious self admitted meat puppetry going on here Ydam 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest maybe we BJAODN this whole debate too, it's certainly unique Ydam 16:55, 9 June 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.