Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tahunanui 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 List of schools in Nelson, New Zealand. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Tahunanui School

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable school. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable primary school. Google search turned up nothing promising. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only coverage I could find was trivial, passing mentions. Till I Go Home (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect - blank, and redirect to List of schools in Nelson, New Zealand where it is already listed. There is no  policy or guideline that  primary  schools are inherently notable, but as redirection  is often a preferred solution: Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article (policy), non notable schools that  are proven to  exist are generally not deleted; instead, according  to  long  established precedent demonstrated by  100s of AfD closures, and summarised in WP:OUTCOMES, an objective essay  that  "is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy", they are redirected to  the article about  the school district (USA), or to  the article about  the locality, or to a list article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per convincing Kudpung's rationale. Cavarrone (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete. The subject of the article lacks the RS coverage that would -- in light of precedent -- support notability such as would lead us to keep it as a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 20 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.