Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennycross 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 Plymouth.  Jujutacular  talk 06:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Pennycross Primary School

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Presumably about a primary school. Possibly fictional, since the article does not indicate where it is, although it does note that the teachers are very friendly. Prod tag removed by User:Colonel Warden, presumably because they believe this is worth keeping in its present state. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (for now). As it stands, I don't even know what country its in. The article has no context, which would usually make it eligible for speedy delete.Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It takes less than 12 seconds to find out if a school in the western world is genuine. This schoool is in Plymouth, England.scope_creep (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK#2. The nominator's comments indicate that he has not followed the deletion process.  As user:scope_creep observes, it requires almost no effort to establish the bona fides of this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is not a policy. Nor is it a guideline. It is a fragment of a process documentation. WP:VERIFIABILITY is one of the core policies. You removed the prod tag from the article without doing the estimated "less than 12 seconds" of work to source it, leaving something that can only be described as useless in the context of an encyclopaedia. Yet you characterize my actions as "unquestionably vandalism or disruption", which is what WP:SK criterion 2 says. I suspect your time here is running out thanks to antics like this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is part of WP:AFD which obviously governs this process. Myself, I checked out the sources for the article before editing.  The sources were abundant and so the prod was inappropriate, just like the AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you sought and found sources for the article, but could not be bothered to add them? Even though you were editing it anyway to remove the prod? Why not? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Plymouth. Yes, the nominator hasn't followed WP:BEFORE, and the school definitely exists, but there's still no sign of notability. Forcing a keep outcome irrespective of consensus would simply mean that someone would nominate the article again based on notability, which would be silly. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Plymouth. Merge anything that might be worthwhile.  Snotty Wong   babble 15:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I think any school is notable. It is utterly absurd to have the patchy mess of having some schools in WP, and with others being absent, but equally valid. Keep it and allow it's young editor to expand it, and enable he/she to become part of the WP firmament. scope_creep (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Plymouth. The food is amazing, but no reason to treat this any differently than any other primary school in the world.  I think that the young editor moved on to other interests several months ago, but he or she is always welcome at Wikipedia.  Mandsford 21:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Plymouth does not mention any primary schools. So, it may not even be worth mentioning unless this school is somehow more important than every other one. Also, the article is POV violation and/or original research.(Examples: "the food is amazing" and "the teachers are very friendly") So, no content worth merging. NotARealWord (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. I found one set of news stories which should not be used for BLP reasons; they are about an individual who wound up being acquitted. Other than that I found passing mentions of the school, and reminiscences on a personal website.  One thing that may be promising is the first book on this Google books search, but Google only gives a snippet of that, so it is hard to tell.  So far, I'm not seeing notability here. Cardamon (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2010 (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.