Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Stukeley Church of England 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 Holbeach. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

William Stukeley Church of England Primary School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN primary school, of students ages 4-11. I cannot see any special indicia of notability; in such circumstances, we generally do not keep such articles as stand-alone articles. Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Holbeach, where the school is already mentioned.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Holbeach per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  11:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable school. We generally do not delete such articles, per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * how is it notable school? WP:PRESERVE gives no inherent notability to primary schools. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What LibStar says -- Andrew, at these primary schools you have repeatedly just made a statement that appears to be wrong. Epeefleche (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My position is supported by both policy and evidence. Your position seems to rest upon nothing so substantial.  Andrew (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What policy? What evidence? Contra, see wp:outlines. As well as the other editors' comments here. And the other editors disagreeing with your bald assertion at the current Articles for deletion/Clementi Primary School (2nd nomination). And at the current Articles for deletion/Unicorn Primary School. Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. And evidence of WP:SIGCOV such as the BBC and Ofsted.  And you've got what?   wp:outlines !?  That doesn't make any sense. Andrew (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

the complete weakness of these sources has been discussed here User_talk:Andrew_Davidson. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew, if you are so correct in applying guidelines why has no one else voted keep here? LibStar (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew, please read the posts by all the other editors at this AfD and the other primary schools AfDs that are ongoing where you have participated. And what they refer to. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew - Please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Each and every keep you make is generally a waste of time in regards to school afds. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay which has no particular force at AFD. It purports to track the outcomes and so, by definition, it follows the debate rather than leading it.  In any case, it does not suggest we delete schools and so the repeated bringing of such pages here for deletion is the waste of time.  If people think that such pages should be merged or redirected then they can do this by means of ordinary editing and spare us these vexatious discussions.  But if discussions are started then you must expect me to contribute to them - this is the point of having them - they are not rubber stamps. Andrew (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree there I'd say it does lead it, I totally agree everyone should just merge/redirect - Problem is and It's happened to me - Anyone that does a merge/redirect is reverted by a trigger-happy editor and so a discussion is just an easier process in that respect, Again I totally understand we all have our own opinions (It would be bloody boring if we were the same!) but I suppose some aren't necessary if you like ...., What I'm saying is you should vote Keep for those honestly worth keeping :), – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Andrew -- We can expect you not to contribute continually with what appears to be an unsupported falsehood at these AfDs, saying "Keep ... [on the basis that] We generally do not delete such articles". We don't generally keep such articles; please see all editor reactions to your comments at this and other AfDs, and what they point to.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've posed reference to this and other parallel discussions at the Outlines talk page here, asking for comment. Epeefleche (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * delete no inherent notability to primary schools, the one does not meet WP:ORG, LibStar (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Holbeach per nom and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Philg88 ♦talk 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * merge and Redirect to Holbeach - the current single paragraph that makes up the article is a perfect addition for the locality article. Non-notable. school outcomes etc Atlas-maker (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Holbeach. School isn't notable on its own, (and likely won't ever be unless Prince George goes there), but at least this way we can keep it in some form. I don't like deleting schools if we can avoid it. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is nothing merge-able, as it is all uncited (and challenged). If someone wants to create proper content at a target, and redirect, I have no problem with that however. Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD for all but the most exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2014 (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.