Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Cyprian's Episcopal 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. Tone 18:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Cyprian's Episcopal School

[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)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Non-notable primary school. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Four in-depth treatments of the school are listed from ktre.com, a third party source; this means it passes WP:School.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:School. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, no it doesn't, and simply saying it does, does not make it so. NSchool simply shifts to WP:NORG and WP:NGEO, neither of which this non-notable primary school meets. Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is possible to subjectively discount the value of the sources or how "in depth" you want them to be. The more you do that the more you get into a grey area. I am of the opinion that the sources listed qualify it as a notable subject.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary schools are not presumed notable; routine coverage by one local source, even if in a few articles from the same source, does not establish notability. Epiphyllumlover's claim that these brief blurbs (three, not four here) are "in-depth treatments" is utterly laughable. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere is no presumption of notability for primary schools. The sources are routine coverage from a local news source, as well pubs by the school itself. Edison (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Edison. Primary schools are generally lacking notability. Fails WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2019 (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.