Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pathfinder 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 Traverse City, Michigan. Consensus is to redirect nn schools and plus Redirect is preffered over deletion/ (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 02:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Pathfinder School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing special about this elementary school that I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect per WP:NSCHOOL. The only source used is the school website. Upon further investigation, I couldn't find any independent sources that establish its notability. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 21:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 21:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per . This looks like it could've just been copied from the school's website. Cites no sources, entirely promotional, not notable. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Traverse City, Michigan where it is mentuioned. Per standard procedure as documented at OUTCOMES. (,, and appear not to be aware of this long-standing practice and that 'Redirect' is anchored in policy). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with a redirect (added it to my original post), thanks for bringing that up. What policy, if you don't mind me asking? I always like to increase my awareness on stuff like that. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If my memory serves me right, it's somewhere in WP:DELETION. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A delete !vote doesn't preclude a redirect -- only one that retains the history. Generally speaking, if an article is deleted at AfD but is mentioned appropriately in another article to which it makes sense to redirect (a school in an article about the town being a good example), you don't need a close as redirect in order to just create the redirect. I'm not sure what point you're making with "redirect is anchored in policy" and allusion to WP:DELETION, but I certainly don't oppose a redirect. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , I know the policy inside out. For anyone who still can't find it or who has difficulty in understanding the princile involved, the policy is at WP:ATD-R. But one needs to click the link and read it . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ?? I didn't challenge your understanding of a policy and don't think anybody had difficulty understanding. "Redirect because there's a sensible page that mentions the subject" is not so complicated :) Hence the first part of my reply was explaining that I don't oppose a redirect and that a delete !vote doesn't preclude redirect. My confusion comes from the second part of your !vote argument, simply on the level of sentence comprehension. After mentioning precedent, you added "and that 'Redirect' is anchored in policy". Your presentation and bolding makes it look like a second point/argument that you're saying we aren't aware of. I just don't know what that clause means. What point about redirect is made by which policy? ...Unless you're just expressing doubt that we know redirect is a viable AfD outcome/!vote... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely,, precisely. And, BTW, I certainly do doubt that many participants at AfD know that 'redirect' is a viable AfD outcome - anchored in policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood you as well, and knew that was a valid outcome. I took you to mean that policy dictated a redirect in this case. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be hard for anyone who wishes to participate in AfD to familiarise themselves with the policies. 'Anchored' in this context means, for a fluent user of English, that 'redirect' is covered by policy and unambiguously so. Equally, anyone who is aware of valid policies or guidelines should be able to implement them without fear of rebuttal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. It looked like an argument being presented rather than strictly a condescension. I suppose I should also add that "'delete' is anchored in policy" as well, in case there's confusion :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 05:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * for a fluent user of English - In the context of an AfD and your argument, this fluent speaker of English was not able to assume the degree of condescension required to interpret your sentence in the present context. Perhaps it was unintentional, but you're only being more insulting now. Since we ultimately do not disagree concerning the redirect in this particular case, let's just move on? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 05:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You made the assumption that three users weren't aware that a redirect was a valid outcome, a bold and perhaps undue assertion. Personally I don't think "anchored" was a good or clear choice of wording. Secondly, policy states deletion is not required, not that it shouldn't sometimes be done. Redirecting is a "long-standing practice", but I wouldn't say it needs to go that way in this case. As I plan to remain civil, and this conversation is almost going down another path, that'll be all I have to say. Take the last word if you like. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 05:54, 21 June 2015 (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.