Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Road Primary School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus over how to apply the relevant guidelines. Deryck C. 17:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Road Primary School[edit]

Bishop Road Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school. Naturally a hundred-year-old primary school is likely to have had a notable person or two through it's doors, but this notability is not inherited and I see no reason why the biographies of any of these notable people would focus on their primary school for indepth coverage, as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect / merge to Education in Bristol as per current policy of redirecting primary schools to the main education topic in that area, in the absence of any other sources to satisfy WP:GNG by other means (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cary Grant and PAM Dirac — that's quite impressive. Anyway, the topic is notable, of course, being documented in detail multiple sources such as this, this and that. Warden (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not inherited. Per WP:ORG, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." Till I Go Home 05:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable sources and notable school. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. The second source only briefly mentions the school in passing ie: not significant coverage. The third is an Ofsted report which is written for every school. That leaves the first, which is a basic news item. Not really enough to establish notability on its own grounds. Saying "it's notable" doesn't necessarily make it so. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying it's not notable is of course your opinion also. I disagree with your characterization of the sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Ofsted reports satisfy WP:SIGCOV being detailed, independent and reliable. They are written precisely in order to provide a good account of the school as a matter of public interest and so are perfect for our purpose. Warden (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Ritchie333. A standard inspection and an article on a directory website do not show significant coverage. Notability is not inherited from pupils.--Charles (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom, I agree that redirect is a useful alternative to deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Four highly notable pupils from one little state school. Also Dirac, Polkinghorne and Green are/were all notable Cambridge mathematicians/physicists and it's inspiring to young people that such things are possible. Any bio of Grant, Dirac of Polkingorne (of which there are many) will mention this so plenty of RS. NBeale (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge with Education in Bristol. WP:GNG requires significant coverage of the school—the second source is a trivial mention and the third is merely an inspection report. The first appears useful although we need more coverage to meet the notability standards. However no benefit is gained from deleting the article and a redirect seems more appropriate. Till 13:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plain delete -- We do not do Primary School alumni; only secondary and tertiary. The suggested target Education in Bristol has no section on primary education. If there was a list article on Primary Education in Bristol, we could merge this stub-article there, but as far as I can see there is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But perhaps we ought to when a school produces such remarkable people. Primary education has a big effect on subsequent development. The issue is not "have we done this in other places" but "is this article (sufficiently) against policy" and it seems to me it isn't. (I think I did create it but I have no big stake in the matter. I came across this, as I recall, reading (my friend) John Polkinghorne's autobiography and thought it was sufficiently remarkable to note. I think he mentions the fact - though I can't lay my hand on the book at present. NBeale (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic meets the GNG with sources currently listed. There are additional sources due to its famous pupils, but many will be passing mentions.  The Steve  16:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bishop_Road_Primary_School&oldid=1089101961"