Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pontnewynydd 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   keep. Tone 15:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Pontnewynydd Primary School

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

My attempt to redirect this to the article on the community where the school is located (to which I added a mention of the school), per the usual practice for nonnotable elementary schools, was reverted by an editor who apparently doesn't accept the WP notability guidelines, so I guess I have to bring it here. Insufficient substantive treatment in reliable secondary sources to support a stand-alone article. Deor (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  —Deor (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —Deor (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom, though AfD is for debating deletion of an article, not for contesting reversion of a redirect.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 18:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Close  (See Below) Since no one wants to delete this discussion should continue elsewhere. AFD is not a substitute for dispute resolution.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (And by dispute resolution I include any attempt to discuss this. The talk page is redlinked, and there's no discussion on the talkpage of the editor who reverted).--Cube lurker (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I didn't "want to delete". Indeed, in the second sentence of my nomination I gave reasons why the article does not satisfy the general notability guideline and is therefore worthy of deletion. Considering Colonel Warden's comments at Articles for deletion/Woodside Primary School, Grays, one might reasonably conclude that any attempt to discuss the matter with him would be futile. Deor (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You said standard practice was to redirect. I agree.  Someone reverted you.  I tend to agree redirect is the way to go.  But did you ask why the other user disagreed with the redirect?  That's the next step.  No need to bring it here when the redirect can be handled through normal consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I already knew why he disagreed with the redirect—to wit, because he disagrees with the "standard practice" and with the notability guidelines in general. Deor (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then if this is part of some larger dispute between you two, there's dispute resolution.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any larger dispute. Look, I happened on this article because of its inclusion in Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data, and I tried to be nice and act in accordance with established procedure by adding a sentence about the school to Pontnewynydd and redirecting the article there; but a user who has participated in Articles for deletion/Woodside Primary School, Grays—which I nominated for a similar reason—has apparently decided to follow my contributions and revert any such actions on my part. What sort of dispute resolution would you suggest? AN/I? RFC? ArbComm? This hardly seems suitable material for any of those. The forum we're in right now seems to me exactly the proper one for a general discussion of the fate of an individual article about a nonnotable elementary school (although the discussion to which I'm contributing at the moment does seem rather tangential). Deor (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Things have certainly changed since my last comment. I prejudged poorly in thinking a redirect was the way to go.  Improvements to the article move this into keep range.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing notability due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, or if references are provided to satisfy verifiability, Merge to Pontnewynydd. Articles for deletion/Common outcomes  says "Most, but not all, schools for younger children don't meet this standard and are therefore frequently merged or redirected."  WP:ORG says "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or local chapter of a club) may be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." Edison (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The topic is notable as one would expect for a substanatial educational establishment and so is easy to expand from the detailed sources available. The nomination was not compliant with our deletion process and it does not appear that the nominator actually wants to delete the topic.  Instead it seems that he just wants to own it and is reacting in this way for tactical reasons.  There is no policy or guideline requiring any special suppression of such topics as WP:SCH failed to establish a consensus.  As the Wikipedia Foundation has an explicitly educational mission, it should give good priority to topics of this sort.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please address the notability of the subject of the AFD, relative to guidelines and policies, and desist from ad hominem attacks on the nominator. Elementary schools have in general been not found worthy of stand-alone articles. Edison (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did address it - the topic is clearly notable as it has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your contrary opinion above is counterfactual.  As for ad hominem, please note that the nomination started in this vein and so WP:SAUCE is applicable as  it is unfortunately the case that false assertions of this sort may be believed if they are not robustly refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Epic AGF fail.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 01:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Edison, we're not trying to figure out whether "elementary schools in general" are notable: we're trying to figure out whether this specific school meets either WP:GNG or WP:ORG.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Don't just try to delete something because you automatically believe all elementary schools are not worthy of having articles.  This is as notable as any high school is, it mentioned not just in local news, and producing England's youngest pop star Demi Holborn, with the school singing back up for their album.   D r e a m Focus  05:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep noteability clearly established by the Colonel's improvements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —  D r e a m Focus  05:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability has been established from the content and sources added to the page. TerriersFan (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep unusually, this primary school actually is notable in a number of ways, all described in the article.  Aiken   &#9835;   23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets notability guidelines. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable in spite of the predudice shown against primary education. Several sources provided.  Primary schools may not be afforded automatic notability, but they are not automatically non-notable. DiverScout (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Edison. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Most primary schools are not notable, but this one appears to be based on the current state of the article, including the award, the much better than average outcomes, and the national news coverage. DES (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Unusual school which may well be notable, as I learn from the comments above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 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.