Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russley 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 Avonhead. I don't understand the final comment: we have three editors here who propose merging, and it seems like a good solution in keeping with precedent. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Russley School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Primary school (years 1-8). 5-sentence article (mostly unreferenced), with ibox. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage and it certainly does exist. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. gadfium 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Avonhead. The major reference for the article is the Ministry of Education link in the infobox.- gadfium 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested. This didn't have to come here--doing a merge like this is standard procedure for primary schools. Since the nominator accepts a merge, I do not know why they couldn't simply have done it themself--it doesn't look like there would have been any opposition. DGG (at NYPL) 19:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
 * A merge, of course, is different than a redirect. If the community consensus here is to merge, so be it.  But I do not support a merge.  Nor have I so indicated.  And, as DGG demonstrates, there is not always consensus as to whether to keep, redirect, delete, or merge such articles.  I've certainly seen all four results with such schools. One can point to common results, but one can also point to exceptions to them.  I have my view, DGG has his, and perhaps there will be another editor who will demand "Keep," and yet another who will demand "Delete."  While I have considered merging or redirecting such articles, I don't choose, under these circumstances, to take such a unilateral step here without community discussion, even if DGG were to take such a step were he in my place. At the same time, if there were so self-evidently only one possible result here, DGG could of course close it speedily, which he has not seen fit to do.  --Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge (redirect) per DGG. Standard procedure as per the long-standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Note for closing admin: If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to  include the  template on  the redirect  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Relisting comment - WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES precedents merging or redirecting. In the discussion, the nominator opposed merging. The editors that !voted merge were not clear in whether they actually wanted to merge the content or not. In this listing period, the discussion should focus on whether we should merge the content to another article or simply redirect the page without merging anything. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2013 (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.