Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shepley First 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 Shepley. WP:ROUTINE report does not prove notability. If merger is desired it can be done from history (don't forget attribution). The Bushranger One ping only 12:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Shepley First School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Shepley as nn. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Shepley according  to  established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to  article about  school  district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to  include the  template on  the redirect  page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Shepley, where it is. This is the best solution for Primary Schools.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Shepley. No assertion as to why this school is notable Pit-yacker (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG because it is documented in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Our editing policy is to retain such content not to delete it. Warden (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Warden's routine Ofsted inspection  report clearly  demonstrates that  the school  is a non  notable institution  for children aged 5 - 10. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The age of the pupils has nothing to do with notability. If you suppose that it does, please cite the relevant policy. Warden (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't one. GNG is just  a guideline as its name implies and it does not specifically address schools either. The Ofsted report  is just  a routine  government  paper that  all  schools get roughly  every  three years, putting  it  basically, saying little more than 'This school  has classrooms, pupils, and teachers, and needs to do better at...' and more than establishing  existence, does little to  assert, as a multiple source, notability. There is however, a clear precedent (not to be confused with WP:OSE and WP:OCE) demonstrated by 100s (or 1,000s) of AfDs for redirecting  non  notable primary schools (generally  attended by  pupils aged 5 - 10).  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, so we've established that your argument is not policy-based and instead you're pointing to an essay page which therefore carries little weight. The attempt to dismiss a valid source by claiming that it is "just routine" has no basis in the notability guideline.  It seems to be a purely ad hoc argument intended to dismiss a substantial source in a hand-waving way for lack of any better reason.  If you look at the reasons why we require such sources you will find that they fit perfectly, being substantial, independent and accurate so that they provide suitable material upon which we may write an article.  Given we have satisfactory material upon which to write, my position is based upon this guideline and our editing policy which make it quite clear that this topic is suitable for us. Warden (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. Run of the mill; routine report from government agency is not "significant coverage." Neutralitytalk 22:08, 27 December 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.