Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alder Coppice Primary School (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect. (Non-admin closure by Malleus Fatuorum) AfDs for this article: 

Alder Coppice Primary School

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The significant information about this apparently unremarkable school has been merged with Sedgley, its local neighbourhood article. Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Sedgley as could have been done without coming here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That merge has already been done, as I pointed out in the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I am making is that it could simply have been redirected. Since content has been merged, the page cannot be deleted for GFDL compliance so the nomination is fundamentally flawed. TerriersFan (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As "deleted pages" are not actually deleted I have never found the GFDL argument to be very convincing. The material in the Sedgley article may or may not have come from this one, who can tell? I was in any case not altogether convinced that the topic even warranted a redirect, which is why I opened this AfD. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —TerriersFan (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect For the regular non-admin, deletion means deletion. They can't see the article and the related history which makes following the 'paper' trail of who wrote what impossible to follow. That's why it violates the GFDL. We would keep information while not having the related pages publically available. Everybody should be able to see it complies with the GFDL, not just admins. Besides, if it's merged, then we should really have a redirect to point readers to the right article and avoid recreation. - Mgm|(talk) 22:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the GFDL argument works on any level, but if the consensus is for a redirect I'm happy with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect this should never have come here. When we merge such materai in, we create a redirect as a matter of course to preserve the edit history. Quite apart from GFDL, if a particular named institution is included as a significant section of an article, it should have a redirect whether  or not there was a preceding article there.  Malleus, is there sufficient consensus for you to withdraw the AfD now? DGG (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I don't agree with any of the reasoning, I'm prepared to bow to what appears to be an inevitable consensus against my view. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 5 February 2009 (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.