Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurrane National 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 Crossbarry. j⚛e deckertalk 01:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Gurrane National School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Crossbarry per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, tentatively. The article was created by an editor User:Grove76 in 2009 who brought it to this version after removing some too-promotional text that had been contested.  Grove76 commented at the Talk page: "The promotional reference in the site has been removed. The historical kernel remains as it is of interest to those researching the Crossbarry Ambush. This strictly historical nature of the article will be expanded on as newer discoveries are made regarding the old school. (Grove76 (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) "   The school apparently does have association with Richard Barrett (Irish republican) (1899–1922), who was principal there, and was later executed during the Irish Civil War, according to that version of the article.  I grant that the promise "will be expanded" has not been met, but there does seem to be some historical importance.  However, it is not clear in the article which buildings are referred to, the previous version mentioned that "The old building ceased to be in use as a school house in 1956 when the new school was built closeby. It is currently a private residence."    I myself don't have access to Irish newspapers databases.  Some researching and editing is required, not deletion. -- do  ncr  am  01:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Doncram--You agree that it does not meet GNG? If so, the proper course is either a redirect or a delete. We don't at AfD keep articles that have not been shown to meet GNG.  Because there "may" be GNG sources out there.  It can always be recreated upon the GNG sources -- if they exist -- being discovered.  As you point out, it has been 5 years .... " And in any case, from the above it appears that it might still only qualify for a redirect, albeit to a different target (the Ambush or Barrett). Epeefleche (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No offense intended or taken, but i don't agree that the topic does not meet wp:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."  There is no requirement that an article include sources at all;  stubs with no sources can be fine to have, if there is knowledge (or reasonable expectation) that significant coverage in reliable sources exists.  At AFD we can try to determine whether significant coverage exists.  Not implying you are saying otherwise, but AFD is not for cleanup; demands that an article be fixed to some quality level or else it will be deleted are not proper.  In this case my tentative judgment, admittedly based on not much, is that there probably is notability here.  It sure would be nice if someone with Irish databases access could add information to the article or this AFD discussion, but at this point i judge it best to Keep the article. -- do  ncr  am  15:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the GNG sources need not exist in the article itself. And I completely agree that AfD is not for cleanup. (And yes, sources with zero sources can exist, though of course they can be stubbed and text deleted to the extent the text is not supported by RSs and is challenged, per wp:v).
 * That said, the RS refs that constitute significant coverage must be shown to exist, for the article to meet GNG. The GNG test is not: "Do editors fail to show RS GNG significant coverage, but--despite the absence of demonstrable GNG significant coverage--guess that such coverage exists?" Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Crossbarry per long-standing precedent as documenteed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and evidenced by over 1,000 school  redirects. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Crossbarry. No evidence this school is notable, indeed, but a redirect to the relevant place makes sense, is cheap, and is routine practice as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. BethNaught (talk) 15:08, 28 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.