Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitzjohn's 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   keep. This does not mean that a merge discussion can not continue on the article's talk page. J04n(talk page) 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fitzjohn&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Primary schools are not notable as a rule, this one should be no different. The PROD I originally put on the article was removed by creator, so I'm taking it here. King Jakob  C2 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  00:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  00:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

With reference to WP:ORG, articles can be considered notable where they have significant coverage in secondary sources, independent of the organisation in question, enabling one to write more than a brief stub about trivial matters relating to the organisation. Depending on the depth of coverage the article there may need several such independent sources. This article currently has at least 7 such references, relating to the heritage, history and events relating to the school.
 * Delete per longstanding consensus that articles on all but the most extraordinary elementary schools are presumed unencyclopedic. I'm not seeing a redirect target. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hampstead, where the school is located, or redirect to London Borough of Camden. Peter&#160;James (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to London Borough of Camden. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep According to Wikipedia guidance I contend this article needs to meet notability criteria set out in WP:ORG and also WP:NGEO. As the author you might expect this. My rationale is as follows:-

With reference to WP:NGEO, articles relating to artificial structures can be considered notable if the structure in question has a cultural or heritage or any other protected status (see WP:GEOFEAT): The school in question is a successor to a school established over 150 years ago. It occupies school buildings which date back to the 1850s, were opened by Prince Albert and are currently recognised as a National heritage site being Grade II listed and registered with English Heritage.

WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines provides further clarification. In fact the discussion as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines though not guidance clarifies the rationale for the guidance wording sets out contempory views of editors which suggest a blind adherence to all primary school being 'not notable' should be avoided at all costs. This view is borne out in practice In the London areas alone there are currently around 100 articles on primary schools. The majority of these have been around for several years; most contain a limited amount of details about the school or its history. A significant number comprise no more than a short paragraph or single sentence. In general there is just basic, 'trivial' information based on that contained on the school website or prospectus. The content of articles is generally poorly supported by secondary sources and in some cases there is just a link to the school website or there are no citations at all. Within this group there are numerous articles which have been tagged for lack of citations or independent sources, some also have been tagged as candidates for merger or redirection or AfD. These tags date back in most cases to before 2010 and in a good many examples to 2007 or earlier. No attempt has been made to delete or redirect these. Across Primary School articles in England as a whole there are close to 400 which are tagged via Hidden Criteria indicating they should be merged or redirected to another article. Again there seems no desire to purge Wikipedia of all these primary school articles. Though 400+ 'wrongs' don't make a right it is clear on which side the weight on the scales of justice lies.Tmol42 (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect aa Kudpung suggested. There's a good target And there's no non-routine documentation for this one. Personally, I would be prepared to extend notability to primary schools, basically for the reason of providing younger editors with articles to start out with, but I doubt there would be agreement; the rediret preserves the content if we ever do agree to that.  There's been agreement that Grade Ii English Heritage does not make for notability . I;'d be prepared to argue that it should, despite the half million articles it would entail, but I think the rule has been widely accepted.  DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no deletion argument, as the nomination is a objection, that the topic "shouldn't" be notable and that the PROD was removed.  The initial delete argument says that statistically, this topic won't be found to be wp:notable.  The next argument assumes without explanation that the topic is not wp:notable.  The next !vote is a JUSTAVOTE.  The next !vote is a thoughtful analysis that contends that the topic is notable.  The next !vote says that there is "no non-routine documentation", which strangely ignores details in the article.  I did a Google search on "William Munt", who appears to be a wp:notable architect with no article on Wikipedia, which should make it clear that the argument of "no non-routine documentation" does not reflect the material in this article.  A look at the What Links Here, lists Melanie Blatt.  I looked at the suggested merge and redirect targets, and also looked at List of schools in Hampstead.  In summary, wp:notability is satisfied by way of WP:GNG, there is no particular reason to merge or redirect, and "we always do it that way on Wikipedia" is not a redirect argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is another ref:
 * Unscintillating (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, as a school, this quite clearly fails WP:N as the "sources" are the routine sort you'll find for any school. However, this institution may be notable in an architectural sense, as a Grade II listed building.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep -- Normally we merge or delete primary schools, but the architecture and its origin mark this one out as different. Therre are hundered of Victorian schools.  The fact that this one is a listed building marks it out.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2013 (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.