Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine McAuley Catholic 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine McAuley Catholic Primary School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. No text. No credible claim of significance or of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A3 and tagged as such. John from Idegon (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regular delete - it's nothing more than an infobox - there is no text whatsoever. I know (at the time of my comment) the article is a mere eight hours old, but I'd be tempted to go speedy. Is an A7 applicable here? GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 11:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at the moment. Yes very new article, and there is also ditto McAuley Catholic Primary School, a different one but article the same issue. The common creating editor would appear to be experienced enough to know better? So not sure what is happening. Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, irrespective of our leniency towards school articles, this has no useful encyclopedic content. Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Schools are one of the types of entries to which A7 does not apply. So there is no easy A7. I would like to see an A13 criterion for infobox-only, no text, no references. They are common enough that a separate criterion would be useful. However, there is no consensus at WT:CSD for an additional criterion. So here we are. I don't think that A1 or A3 applies, and so I go with PROD for some articles and AFD with this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2017 (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.