Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Francis of Assisi's English 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 Sham Shui Po. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 07:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

St. Francis of Assisi's English Primary 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) 20:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Sham Shui Po or Hong Kong Catholic School  Board.  Non   notable schools are generally  not  deleted; instead,  as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to  the article about  the school district (USA) or to  the article about  the locality (rest  of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the  on  the redirect  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect, as the usual way of handling it. Contrary to what was said just above, redirection for primary schools, or anything else that lacks notability but is worth mentioning, is firmly established policy, as a basic part of WP:Deletion Policy, that if there is an alternative to deletion, it should be taken. In the case of schools, this particular action is very firmly established also by years of absolutely consistent decisions at AfD, which is as much a guideline as if it were written down as such. And, of course we do not even need a guideline or policy to take the obvious course for handling something--that;s one of our foundational principles. The guideline we follow for primary schools is that they are not notable, in general. That there are a few people who think they are all notable regardless does not affect the acceptance of the guideline, because we never decide on that basis. When we do keep one here, it's because of special characteristics. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement that a redirect is fine here, if that is the consensus at this AfD. I don't see anything RS-supported in the text to warrant keeping any text via merger of the text into the article that this is re-directed to.  In similar AfDs of late, we have had a range of !votes -- including keep, delete, merge, and redirect. And we have had varying closes. And a variety of assertions by different editors as to what our standard way of doing thing is. And even here we have different views expressed. Perhaps a notability guideline addition would help clarify these type AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * the only varying closes we have had are for those primary schools were there is a speciual factor, which is asserted is enough to cause notability ; such will always come here, unless the school is famous enough that nobody doubts it. the various voices are people wording the standard a little differently, but meaning the same thing, or trying to challenge a standard. Are there any examples, of a primary school kept without there being some strong special factors? Given that the variation of AfD discussions is at least 10%--some would say double that-- that anything gets as much consensus as this does is extraordinary.  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just this week I've seen varying closes for other reasons -- some have been delete without redirect, and some have been redirect, and some have been merge (without it being clear in some cases that only RS-supported material should be merged, which I would imagine would be the better course). Also, while some people may view a school being 100 or 150 years old as a special factor, other editors do not share that view.  And our friend the Colonel and a couple of others have viewed the detailed bureacratic automatic report the same way we view the census for cities and town -- as sufficient to meet our notability standards, and confer notability ... though that view has not prevailed as of yet this week.  And some editors think we treat schools that stop at grade 10 or 11 as high schools -- at least in certain countries -- and automatically keep them, while others think the "keep high schools" well-settled rule applies only to schools that have education through grade 12.  For my part, my greatest concern is that we move forward in a consensus-driven manner; I care less whether we include grade 10 schools, than that we have people claiming that it is well-settled that we keep them, while others claim that it is well-settled that we do not.  Perhaps a well-crafted clear notability guideline would be helpful, though some think our divisions (signs that matters are not well-settled?) are such that we could not pass one.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2012 (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.