Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farnham Church of England Primary School


 * 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 to Farnham, Essex. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Farnham Church of England Primary School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Charles (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Why is this school deemed not notable when others are included in Wikipedia? Either all primary schools in Essex are permissible on Wikipedia or none are. Links have been made to secondary sources to affirm notability, which is more than most schools featured on Wikipedia.--Deltaniger (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Farnham, Essex per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind merging it, but it seems to be a policy that is unevenly applied when there are some primary schools banned from Wikipedia and some that are accepted, even with no proven "notability".--Deltaniger (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What Davey said. Deltaniger -- it may well just be that other such schools are awaiting their own AfD. Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Epeefleche - Most primary schools you think are notable probably won't be here by next week. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  02:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This background may help clarify the matter ... it may be illuminating to look at some of the past primary school AfDs here (focusing on the ones from recent years). Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Farnham, Essex per concensus for non-notable primary schools. Philg88 ♦talk 04:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Farnham, Essex or to a schools section. Non-notable primary. No reason to have its own article on WP. Atlas-maker (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Forget about the schools/education sections. The Farnham article needs severe expansion. Atlas-maker (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So what happens next, now that people who have no apparent link with the area think what I wrote should be deleted?--81.155.18.216 (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * --Deltaniger (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that editors participating here have an "apparent link with the area." In fact, it can cut the other way, if the link with the topic is one that presents a conflict of interest. If the article is redirected, then appropriate content can be created by you or others at the target article. Epeefleche (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge (not just redirect) with Farnham, Essex. The school has had a high-profile local news campaign recently to have it closed with pupils moving to Stansted, well documented in The Herts-Essex Observer. However, that in itself is not really enough to have a standalone article. For an example of a primary school of similar age that we would keep, see Ashdown House, East Sussex who has a very well known former pupil. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look very notable to me. Famous alumni do not make a school notable. Little else in Ashdown House. Atlas-maker (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So nominate it for deletion and see who agrees with you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is a case of voting, rather than determining policy, then it would be easy to pack this with parents voting. A curious way to run an encyclopaedia! I'm happy with whatever is policy as I don't own Wikipedia I only occasionally edit the significant amount of information that appears wrong on subjects I know about. This is the first time I have registered an account and it's a mystery to me. If people vote or it is policy to discard this article, then I am happy with putting the information in the article for the village. However, I would ask for it to be retained somewhere so that it is not all lost and I don't have to waste time. Thanks.--Deltaniger (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. The object is to achieve consensus through discussion based based on policy and guidelines. Packing this discussion with meat puppets would not make any difference.--Charles (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Apropos your comment on losing material, you can request userfication of the article but please read this guideline regarding the reuse of deleted material. Philg88 ♦talk 03:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. This 28-student school of children ages 4-11 is NN, per the above discussion. Merge is not appropriate -- because it is not appropriate to merge material that is both uncited and challenged (as here). But if redirect is the result, editors can create appropriate material at the target. Epeefleche (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What material in the article is not cited or challenged? There are links to sources. You may not find it interesting, but the school is notable in the community in which it is situated - indeed, apart from the church it is the last remaining institution in a rural community - and there was a lot of press and radio coverage over the proposal to move it to another community. This is all sourced. But if you have a problem with content, this should be discussed within the article rather than a reason to delete it.--Deltaniger (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article IMHO is NN, per our notability standards, and the comments of the others suggesting that it is not notable are in accord with mine, and I've pointed you to other similar AfDs and Outcomes w/regard to how we address such schools typically, all of which accords with the conclusion that there should not be a stand-alone article for this 28-student school of children ages 4-11. Again, if there were appropriate mention of the school at a target article, as some have suggested, to which this school were redirected, I would not have a problem with that.  Please spend some time reading the diffs SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the past primary school AfDs here (focusing on the ones from recent years) to understand why most editors who have !voted on this page who are seasoned editors have not !voted to keep this as a standalone article. Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what you say about your notability standards, although I don't understand much of your jargon. But what is your objection about having this content in the Farnham page? You said "it is not appropriate to merge material that is both uncited and challenged" and although no-one has said the material itself is not cited or challenged, you appear to want all mention of this school removed even from the article on the community itself. Or perhaps I misunderstood you.--Deltaniger (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to provide links to any jargon that is unfamiliar or explain it. Much you can glean by double-clicking the blue links in what I wrote, and what others wrote.  I'm fine with the article being redirected to the Farnham page (an alternative to only deleting it, without a redirect).  If that happens, you can create any appropriate material at that page (I would suggest using RS refs to support text, if any). You and other editors can discuss at that page what is appropriate, if that is an issue. As I read the comments at this point in time, though the closer of this AfD may have a different view, the consensus is not to keep this as a stand-alone article.  But there are five editors who view a redirect as either the appropriate outcome, or an appropriate outcome, which seems to reasonable be a consensus view.   Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Consensus" is, as I understand it, unanimity. There is not a consensus, but a majority opinion since I dissent from the rest. What are "RS refs" and "diffs"? What is the difference between "merge" and "redirect and adding appropriate material"?--Deltaniger (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not mean unanimity, at least on Wikipedia. It is more an informed majority view, giving little weight to those who do not back up their vote with evidence based on policy, i.e. those who want to keep a page because it reflects their particular interests.Charles (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Deltaniger - I've provided some links to the phrases you don't understand, on your talkpage. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I don't understand the arcane rules, I guess it's best I stay out of this conversation.--Deltaniger (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable school for which there is ample significant coverage and no grounds for deletion per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Significant means wider coverage than arguments over closure in the local paper. That can be included in the settlement article.Charles (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew -- your !vote is along the lines of your previous recent !votes at school AfDs. I hope you are taking note how non-consensus your view is in this area, as borne out by the paucity of closes in accord with your !votes. Epeefleche (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Farnham, Essex per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect per longstanding consensus that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. This is an ordinary primary school. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Farnham, Essex per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Delete would be best but in the long run probably just creates more work at AfD. Jacona (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2014 (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.