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 moving to deletion review. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village School Charlottesville Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

See previous AfD here

Relisting. A small private school which provides no reliable sources for its notability. Reads as an advertisment as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SCHOOLS Arakunem 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstaining as this debate seems to go deeper than first appears. Arakunem 17:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and until this school (or someone from it) does something of lasting importance, this article finds itself on the wrong side of that line. Flakeloaf 17:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the principle that the previous deletion debate ended TODAY January 31, 2007. Give it a rest for a few months. It looks like abuse of the AFD process to relist immediately. Edison 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep willing as I normally am to delete articles about non-notable schools, Edison is right. This seems unfair. perhaps it would be possible to change the rules and require a minimum time-- I can not immediately imagine a situation where this would create a problem.DGG 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no time limit on relisting of AfD's. If a person believes consensus is unfair, he may create another discussion at any time. See the perennial proposal on time limit. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As I remarked in the last debate, there is no evidence that this school is any more notable than its peers. WMMartin 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional comment, I'd like to say that I feel that the last debate was closed incorrectly ( that is, by an administrator with a particular bias ), and have no problem with this immediate re-listing. If anyone wishes to challenge the results of other recent school AfD debates closed by the same closing administrator, I will be happy to check, and possibly support, such challenges. I do not at present have substantial confidence that that particular administrator is unbiased, and have indicated accordingly on their talk page. WMMartin 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist in deletion review and close this afd right now, I don't know why wmarsh closed it has no consensus, while the article did approve some, there is still obvious problems with the sources, which was only the school page and some other website that said that the school exists with 64 students no where close to reliable, and I would have closed that as delete. But relisting this in afd a day after it was closed wasn't a good idea, instead dispute the close on DRV. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:39, 3 February 2007 (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.