Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulsgrove 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   redirect to Paulsgrove. Meta consensus is to merge/redirect primary schools to the LEA or community as appropriate. Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Paulsgrove Primary School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm currently assessing primary schools, and redirecting those that don't meet WP:GNG. Since this article is borderline, I'd like to open up a discussion before unilaterally redirecting it. The article contains 4 references; the first two don't seem to actually be about this school. The second two are not online, but seem to merely verify the original organization of the school and the names of recent head teachers. A google news search reveals a few other sources (see ), but none seem to discuss the school in detail as required by WP:GNG. As such, I believe this article should be redirected to a relevant section of its locality or list of local schools. However, as I'm not certain, I invite other opinions first. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to  Paulsgrove per standard practice for nn schools,  where it  is already  mentioned in  the education  section. Uncontroversial  redirect - this AfD  can then be closed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above - this is clearly nn at present. A touch more of the content might be able to be taken to the Paulgrove article too. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with Paulsgrove. We do not normally have articles on Primary Schools.  There is a paragraph in the locality article, which could usefully be expanded from what we have here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question: I want to clarify that I am aware that we normally don't have article on Primary schools, but it is also true that if a primary school meets WP:GNG, it may have its own article. Are the commenters above saying that the sources in the article are not sufficient?  The reason I ask is that while I think it should probably be redirected, it definitely isn't "obvious" or "clear".  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources alone, any number of them, and/or a well  written and researched article do not  notability make. The sources in  the article certainly  confirm  some of the claims, but  those particular claims are routine, such  as for example, a list  of headteachers, or foundation date  (most  new schools are officially  opened by  a local  dignitary), and  do  not  assert any  particular reasons for importance, outstanding  performance, or being  notable in  a unique way (age, listed building, royal charter, exceptionally high number of notable alumni, a major incident  with  national  coverage,etc.). There is however every  case for expanding  the education  section  of the locality  article with some  of the more interesting points about  the school. As a redirect, it  can always be restored as a stand-alone if one day  the school  satisfies notability  requirements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given WP:ORG and it's emphasis on coverage in national or international media (and possibly WP:NONPROFIT as well fwiw) I'd argue that in the case of the majority of primary schools you have, almost by default, a tendency towards a lack of notability. In this case I'd argue that it's actually pretty clear - there are cases where I can be convinced that some notability might have occurred at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2011 (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.