Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erasmus 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Primary School[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. The nominator apparently either didn't read or didn't pay attention to my edit summary for deprodding, so allow me to copy it here for the benefit of other readers: Has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald are Australia's "papers of record", and they do not give the kind of coverage given here for run-of-the-mill schools; this is the national equivalent of, say, two NYT articles. Primary schools do not have the *presumption* of notability, but they're notable if they pass other standards, and Erasmus passes GNG. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Incorrectly nominated. WP:INTROTODELETE explains that it is not sufficient-to give a one phrase exclaimation. (#Competence) The closer requires reasons, in this case why the 16 references given do not count as GNG. ClemRutter (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ClemRutter. Page satisfies GNG and contains signif coverage. Cabrils (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vaticidalprophet, meets GNG. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:40, 31 January 2021 (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.