Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishermoss 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 redirect to Portlethen Academy. Combining redirect and delete below, consensus that the article shouldn't exist, so per WP:ATD, redirecting. Daniel (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fishermoss Primary School

[edit]

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

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

Was a redirect - local coverage one might expect of a local school. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 18:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, has had significant, sustained coverage across three decades in two seperate newspapers both of which cover a fairly wide area (our local paper is the Mearns Leader, the P&J and Evening Express cover the whole of the northeast of Scotland). Has been the subject of a controversy over three years. Article was redirected but without allowing the PROD to remain up for the required seven days. NemesisAT (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage apart from the routine coverage that virtually all schools will have. A spat over a lollypop person is hardly notable, most of the junior schools in my area have had the same problem but that doesn't make them notable. It seems there is some misunderstanding over WP:PROD, it don't have to stay there 7 days, but if it does the page can be deleted any time after that. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:ATD-R, redirecting was appropriate and I don't see anything that suggests a conflict with PROD in these circumstances. --John B123 (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Portlethen Academy where it is mentioned as a feeder school. Does not warrant a separate article per the reasons given by John B123 MB 20:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the sourcing in this article is better than that in Portlethen Academy. It feels a bit arbitrary to delete primary schools but keep secondaries in cases like this. NemesisAT (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Redirect to Portlethen Academy. There does appear some coverage out there about the school, but as John B123 says, it's all the same kind of trivial nonsense that most schools get. It appears the coverage is mostly (or all) local/barely regional also. Which really doesn't help either. I'm fine with a redirect as an alternative to deletion though since its a supplemental school to Portlethen Academy and that article could use the references/content. That said, what's important here isn't really which article has the most sources. The important thing is which topic is more notable as a topic and in this case Portlethen Academy is just higher on the "school notability" list. Like a university or school district is more notable then a preschool would be whatever the amount of references in each article is. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm just finding it bizarre that other Wikipedians will reject an article with ample sources simply because of what it documents. I've run into similar discussions over bus routes and stations, but for some reason railway stations are always considered notable even if they have no or hardly any sources. I find it a bit off putting (though I keep finding myself coming back to Wikipedia!). I don't see how keeping this article harms anyone or the encyclopedia. NemesisAT (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I can understand that. Wikipedia is definitely inconsistent sometimes, but that's to be expected due to the vast range of subjects it covers. Plus, guidelines tend to be intentionally vague. Which I totally understand. I also understand why railway stations are always considered notable compared to bus routes and stations. They have way more historical significance and are way more likely to have coverage about them. That said, I've seen a few AfDs for train stations closed as delete. So, I don't think it's always true that they are presumed to be notable.
Generally, things depend a lot on when the AfD discussion takes place, who participates, and what the wider trends of Wikipedia are at the time. Sure, an argument could be made that keeping the article doesn't hurt anyone, but an argument could also be made that retaining the article hurts the overall quality of Wikipedia. Then we are just left head butting each other over personal opinions. Which really isn't productive. So, I choose to go with following the notability guidelines myself. I can see where your coming from though. A different time, crowd, and you'd probably have a "winning" argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 28 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fishermoss_Primary_School&oldid=1032688460"