Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grove Primary School, Frimley


 * 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 Frimley. The report produced by the one keep !voter is a report produced for every school in England. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Grove Primary School, Frimley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to be a non-notable primary school with minimal refs outside of generic and statutory Ofsted reports. Suggest Delete although willing to accept Merge and Redirect to Frimley. Fmph (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note:  This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note:  This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Frimley where it is already  listed, per standard procedure based on  clear precedent for an acceptable solution  to  avoid unnecessary  bureaucracy. Non notable schools are generally  not  deleted; instead,  as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to  the article about  the school district (USA) or to  the article about  the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the  on  the redirect  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Frimley. Without wishing to offend anyone who goes there or whose children do or have gone there (and I don't think I will), it's just another fairly standard state primary school. The only notable thing I can think of is that it's next door to Frimley Park Hospital, but that's not notability by WP's standards anyway. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  14:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PERNOM. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  10:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it. It is an essay.  Of the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Essays are not Wikipedia policies.  I think it is a silly one, and am always amused by those who cite it as if to say "per the essay pernom".--Epeefleche (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite correct, it's an essay. But far from   being  silly,  it  is one that  instead of expressing  an opinion, simply  documents precedents that  have been established, and that can legitimately be used per 'common law'. It dispenses with  the need for listing  100s (pererhaps 1,000s) of diffs on  every  school AfD that  can  be closed as 'redirect'. Wikipedia is not  necessarily  inclusionist  per se, but  the general  recommendations are that  all  other solutions should be examined, with  deletion  being  a last  resort. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kud. Perhaps we are discussing different things.  I wrote "per nom".  Our friend Ritchie apparently disliked the brevity of that response, and basically said "per essay pernom".  As even that essay -- which as we agree is simply an expression of opinion of one or more editors -- says, "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom"."  That's what we are discussing above, not relates to school AFDs and which should be kept -- that is not the focus of what he and I were discussing.  Happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've lost me completely. I wish I'd just said "Could you expand a bit more on your rationale for a delete", but thought a simple link to WP:PERNOM would give more clout and save a few paragraphs of disagreement. I don't think the page should stay either, by the way. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  19:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Per nom" in this case means, as the rationale set forth by nom indicates, "Appears to be a non-notable primary school with minimal refs outside of generic and statutory Ofsted reports." Even if one is in support of the essay, that falls within what the essay has in mind, IMHO, when it says "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of ... deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom".  Best, and happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The nomination includes none of these things. It makes no reference to policy and makes an improper reference to a guideline contrary to WP:HONEST (WP:N makes no references to generic or statutory as exclusions and so suggesting otherwise is misleading).  The nomination makes no specific recommendation but instead havers about deletion or redirection or merger in an indecisive way.  As this is not a vote and your per-nom shows no independent appreciation of these factors, it should be dismissed. Warden (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The nomination states the view that this school "Appears to be a non-notable primary school with minimal refs outside of generic and statutory Ofsted reports." I agree.  I am of the view that where we have a primary school that has minimal RS refs outside of such reports, per our precedent and the apparent consensus reflected at this and other school AfDs, a delete or redirect would be appropriate, and I'm in favor of a delete for the aforesaid reasons.  I understand that Warden disagrees, and respect his opinion.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't respect user:Warden's opinion that those that disagree with him are somehow dishonest. Fmph (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect as non-notable. The reason why this primary school is notable is not stated. Couldn't find anything on search beyond the routine Ofsted inspection reports and DfE league tables (along with sites that recycle the league table data) produced for all schools to establish notability or significant coverage. Pit-yacker (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The school is notable per our guideline as it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" such as this detailed report of 15 pages. Our editing policy is to avoid deleting material which is so notable. Warden (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2012 (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.