Deletion of Waterloo Road Comprehensive

Comment: then redirect if desired) - only sources provided constitute "trivial mentions" not "significant coverage" per  (referenced at ); the articles are about the work of fiction generally and mention the building only in passing. This does not establish notability outside the fictional universe
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WAF)

Comment: First of all, the school itself is not |notable by our standards as it hasn't been the subject of more-than-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources.  Furthermore, much of this material is unreferenced, going against our policy on |verification.  Going beyond verification, this also appears to be nothing but a |synthesis of OT#PLOT|plot-related material without any actual analysis from a |real-world perspective.  Wikipedia isn't a place to write plot summaries about minor and nonnotable elements of fiction
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:NOT||WP:INUNIVERSE)

Comment: DGG made a correct assessment. The Waterloo Road Comprehensive has been covered in-depth in real-world context in multiple reliable sourceshttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Waterloo+Road+Comprehensive%22&cf=all as well as in reviewshttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Waterloo+Road%22%2C+review&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a.  That the article has sat and not been improved within some arbitrary time is a reason to fix it through cleanup and sourcing, not deletion.  The fact that the authors have not (yet) done so is also not a reason to delete, as Wikipedia |does not demand it be done in some |arbitrary time frame.  If the sense is that the article has too much plot, that's yet another reson for cleanup and editing using the ample available sources, not for deletion. This discussion is about this one article, |not the series or other series elements. As with all reliable sources, a reader must be able to (in principal) check the source themselves to confirm the profferred text. If a reader can read it, watch it, or see it, we do not always expect to have the little things written up in the newspapers. For some non-contentious facts, the primary source (the series) is occasionally acceptable for some simple .  However, as stated above... there IS enough to source this article about a notable element that itself has been documented in Reliable Sources.  Per , "''Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page''", and "''If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.''"  Per Wikipedia:Editing policy|Editing policy offers "''Perfection is not required: |Wikipedia is a work in progress''", and "''|Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT||WP:DEADLINE||WP:WAX||WP:V||WP:DEL||WP:WIP||WP:PRESERVE)