Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady and St Margaret's


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady and St Margaret's
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete non notable elementary school Mayalld (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect a brief mention to Kinning Park per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  - Article does not cite any sources or list any external links, so there's not any verifiable content here to add to the Kinning Park article. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry but the article cites a reliable source - here. TerriersFan (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I now see that there was a reference, but it was invisible due to the absence of a References section. When I reviewed the article I thought it was one of those cases where an inexperienced user inserts a footnote number that doesn't point to anything. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename, clean up, and keep - School appears to be notable for its historic building. Article name should be Our Lady and St Margaret's Primary School. Article needs extensive cleanup, including (but not limited to) additional sources, additional information (e.g., the name of the city), wikification, and copy-editing. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, if kept, shouldn't it be Our Lady and St. Margaret's Primary School? JuJube (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what I said? --Orlady (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the period after "St". ^_^ JuJube (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's what I get for using a small font style... I think that standard UK English usage is to omit the period, but let's leave it up to a UK editor to decide that detail. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the sources include the period and in UK English it is more normal to omit it. I have now moved the page and will rework it in the next couple of days. TerriersFan (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I have rewritten it. TerriersFan (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  01:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the school is based in what seems to be an architecturally significant building. This aspect needs developing in the page, though. TerriersFan (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mergeinto whatever is the appropriate article -- since its RC, probably the article for the diocese. I don't think there is any actual evidence that the building is significant, beyond that its so bad they feel they need to make apologies for it. . DGG (talk)
 * Keep since the building is listed. That's a well established criterion. DGG (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Building is listed.  The listing also gives a reference to a book with a description of the building. JulesH (talk) 08:41, 28 January 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.