Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horsforth Featherbank Infant 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   merge to  Horsforth. DGG (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Horsforth Featherbank Infant School

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

Does not seem sufficiently notable for inclusion. All provided links are to the official website. Google returns few hits.  ♪Tempo  di Valse ♪  19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Horsforth. Colds7ream (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —TerriersFan (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect into Horsforth. per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Horsforth per precedent. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Article should only be merged if independent sources are found. Articles (or sections in case of lists) based solely on primary sources violate basic Wikipedia policy on verifiability and neutrality.- Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three independent external links added. PamD (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment links only prove the school's existence not its notability. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - sure, but that is precisely the point. If the links proved notability then that would justify a standalone page. What the links do is provide independent, reliable, verifiable information that can be merged. TerriersFan (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * hardly, you could find similar for a post office or a police station. WP:ORG says: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. the depth of coverage in these links is hardly deep. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the links are definitely not considered suitable as a source for Wikipedia, they merely give the address like a yellow pages. WP:ORG says the following are exempted: Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. why are you so keen to defend the existence of every school article in Wikipedia? LibStar (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This school fails WP:ORG &mdash; I agree. You said that "links only prove the school's existence not its notability" &mdash; I agree with that too. As TerriersFan said above, the article should be merged merged into Horsforth, not kept. The sources verify the existence of the school, not its notability, so the best option over deleting this article is to salvage the content by merging it. Cunard (talk) 01:49, 2 April 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.