Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tredington Community Primary School (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Tredington,_Gloucestershire. henrik • talk  07:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Tredington Community Primary School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I previously redirected this to the local settlement per WP:OUTCOMES and it has been restored. I see nothing in the article that makes it a notable school so I am bringing it to AfD for deletion/redirection again. Bob Re-born (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Tredington, a nice normal school but not notable in itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect If something has significant coverage for being old and unique, then it might be notable. But just being a hundred years old doesn't mean a subject is automatically notable ( this is a variation of the "inherent notability" fallacy).  Them From  Space  17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources have been identified which would satisfy the relevant notability guideline, WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this primary school is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of any independent coverage at all in RSs in gnews and gbooks. It does exist, but that does not suffice.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect but preserve at least the bits about the age of the school and the catchment area. The previous AfD seems to have been done in 2005 before the consensus emerged that only secondary schools are presumed notable. I was surprised that a school that age hasn't been covered in more sources, but since there really isn't much to say other than this school existing, a merge is the best option. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect seems reasonable. Inasmuch as the entire text is uncited, merge does not (per wp:CHALLENGED).  If there is new text to be created, it can just as easily be created at the merge target -- in which case the editor proposing merge will not be left with the job of moving the history of the page, etc., to the target.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect agree with above user not notable on on but should be merged into parent article. Edinburgh  Wanderer  23:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. I initially reverted the redirect because another editor had previously proposed a merge. The age of the school merited further investigation, and a redirect would have hidden away all the useful content. After investigation, it appears that the school is unusually tiny and it seems unlikely that it will be possible to write a standalone article. I've now merged the content into the Tredington article, and added sources. Dahliarose (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect -- This is almost invariably the best solution for Primary Schools. The consensus is that they are NN.  If some one keeps reverting the redirect, it should go to RFD and be salted.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I am personally ambivalent regarding the page, Per WP:MERGE, I'm of the opinion that this is the wrong venue to discuss a merger. I would suggest that you discuss the issue at the article's talk page and/or relevant projects (such as WP:WPSCH). &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 06:20, 22 February 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.