Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Peter's RC 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. However, it would have been helpful if, along with discussion of sources "in" the article, someone could have presented some examples of supersources that are currently "not" in the article instead of assertions that "they must exist". As a personal opinion though, as long as this school has been around I would be surprised is there isn't older press coverage not archived online. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

St Peter&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article on a perfectly ordinary little primary school in Aberdeen, sourced entirely from the school's own website and archived stories from local press with routine coverage. No assertion whatsoever that the school is in any way notable. John (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Historic school, formed in 1833. Meets WP:GNG. The nominator is in error since the press sources are from regional not local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per TerriersFan. Keristrasza (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a useful encyclopaedic article on a historic school. It satisifies the core Wikipedia policies WP:V and WP:NOR. WP:GNG is just one small part of WP:N which is a guideline not a policy. It is any case impossible to judge what sources will be available to satisfy this guideline as many of the sources will be in books or in local history journals which are not available on the internet. Given that the school has been in existence for nearly two hundred years, it is inconceivable that further sources will not be available to expand the article. The difficulty will be that the school will probably have undergone several name changes. Primary schools did not exist when the school was first founded. Dahliarose (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Can I assume that those voting to keep have examined the four sources as I have done? One is the school's own website, which is a primary source and has really nothing worth mentioning on it. One is scalan.co.uk, which seems to be a hobbyist site and would not normally be considered a WP:RS. One is the Press and Journal, very much a local paper with a series of pretty frothy and insubstantial stories which mention the school. Then we have the one serious source, the BBC one which mentions the school. Will those be enough to guarantee the article can be maintained and expanded in the future? Honestly? Can more sources be found? Because, as it stands, I still doubt the article fulfils GNG. --John (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The existing sources are irrelevant. We are discussing the potential to further develop the article. There are big gaps in the availability of online sources for articles on historic subjects. Dahliarose (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that I have examined the sources. I see no basis for your statement that "One is the Press and Journal, very much a local paper with a series of pretty frothy and insubstantial stories" - can you find any RS which describes the oldest daily newspaper in Scotland in these terms? Indeed our own page on the paper states that this "is a daily regional newspaper serving the northern counties of Scotland including the cities of Aberdeen and Inverness". TerriersFan (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure the P&J is not always frothy and insubstantial. Would you honestly describe this, for example, as establishing notability on Wikipedia? --John (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A straw man; the notability comes from its historic context and cumulation of 'regional' sources not from a single source. TerriersFan (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a straw man, it's a critical examination of one of four references from this source. Here's another. It's a trivial mention. How can you argue that four such mentions equate notability? --John (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "the notability comes from its historic context and cumulation of 'regional' sources not from a single source." TerriersFan (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read this ok the first time. I happen to disagree that four shit sources add up to notability. Have you actually read the sources we are discussing? --John (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Press and Journal is a long-established newspaper. Do you have any serious grounds for believing it to be systematically unreliable, or particularly unreliable in this case?  And using words like "shit" do not help your argument. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the sources? "Pupils from three primary schools in Aberdeen have produced artwork celebrating the centuries-old area of the city which is now on show at Aberdeen University." is a trivial mention and does not in any way equate to notability. It's not that there is anything wrong with the P&J, it's a respectable old local newspaper, it's these particular stories which are rubbish. So, we establish that this is a primary school, that it once had artwork from its pupils exhibited at the local Uni; honestly, if this was our bar for notability we would need to have an article on every tiny community group and youth club which has ever existed and attracted trivial coverage in a local (or if you prefer, "regional") newspaper. It isn't, and we don't. --John (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 179 years is far from "almost 200 years," and being "X years old" is not a basis for notability. to be found in WP:N or WP:ORG, so arguments based on age should be ignored by the closing admin. Edison (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Arguments about age should not be ignored. Notability relates to the availability of sources. The longer an institution has been in existence the more sources will be available. The problem is that most sources (news articles, book snippets on Google Books, etc) relate to the last five to ten years, during which time the school has been a primary school, and not to the earlier history of the school when it educated all children through to school leaving age. Dahliarose (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:ORG, or redirect to the locality or school district per AFD outcomes in recent years. Edison (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AFD Outcomes show that we normally keep all high schools/secondary schools - ie, schools which educate all children through to school-leaving age, as this school did for the greater part of its history. Dahliarose (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The school has significant historical value. Considering the age of the school, there's a strong likelihood that there'll be reliable sources out there, they just have to be found (per WP:NRVE). &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 03:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." --John (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress. It takes time to locate sources, many of which will be in print and not accessible on the internet. This school for most of its existence was a school serving all pupils up to school-leaving age (the equivalent of our present-day secondary schools/high schools), and all such schools are invariably kept per WP:OUTCOMES. There is also a need to counter the inherent WP:RECENTISM on Wikipedia. You cannot judge the 'notability' of historic topics on the availability of online resources. Dahliarose (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per skimming above, sources that pass GNG, and likelihood of more RS. JJB 06:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. User:John should step away and let consensus form without the constant barrage of snide remarks and critical sniping at those who do not share his opinion. Keristrasza (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources for WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The P&J is a national paper, despite what some southerners claim.--Vclaw (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - while parochial schools are not inherently notable, this one easily passes all the relevant guidelines including WP:GNG and my own standards. Bearian (talk)
 * Comment - how many St Peter's RC schools are there in the UK? A quick google gives me ones in Plymouth, Rochdale, Edinburgh, Gateshead, Havering, Stickport, Sittingbourne, Blackburn and Grenwich on the first page of hits. At the very least this article absolutely has to be renamed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree; if kept a disambiguation, perhaps to St Peter's RC Primary School (Aberdeen), looks a good shout. TerriersFan (talk) 23:14, 17 May 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.