Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Luke's 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. Sandstein 11:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Luke's Primary School

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine of any new material that is rs ref supported) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete if no appropriate target can be found. Zero refs is not a good thing. Consensus is that primary schools are rarely notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There must be dozens, if not hundreds of primary schools called St Luke's. It would be wrong to redirect it to the list of schools for this ones local authority, as I don't believe it is the primary topic. The only other St Luke's with a Wiki article is this one, but this suffers from the same probelms as the one in this nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - these are the search results for St Luke's primary schools. Lugnuts (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article no longer has zero refs. When one actually takes the trouble to search for and read the sources, one finds that this has been quite a troubled school - an interesting example of one that was found to have failed but is now being turned around. Because of this, it has been the subject of close scrutiny and so there are plenty of detailed independent sources to be found such as this. Warden (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England and Wales have over 16,000 maintained Primary schools. Every one of them has an Ofsted report. Cannot be used as evidence of notability.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. Unable to find any reason to grant notability. As per other AfD in terms of establishing notability, I maintain that an Ofsted inspection report only confirms the school' existence. By all accounts being graded "unsatisfactory" (one of four grades awarded by Ofsted) isn't a point of note either. Reports suggest as many as a third of schools fall into this category. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district or locali. Non notable primary schools are generally neither deleted nor kept; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). By the same token, references do not assert de facto notability unless the school is especialy notable. Disambiguate as necessary. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Primary school says it all Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search for the article title returns schools in Brighton, Islington, Newham, Kingston, Lambeth, Hampshire, Duston, Tiptree, Cambridgeshire and Frodsham - on the first page of the search results. A redirect in this instance is totally misleading - unless it's a redirect to a dab page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have multiple ways of addressing such issues here at Wikipedia. Deletion is nether an argument nor a solution for articles that might potentially have the same name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So redirect to a newly created dab page then rather than just one of the obvious multiple possibilities for the name. A redirect to any specific location in this case makes no sense at all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is 1) that dab is not a reason for deletion, 2) Redirect to school district or locality; so where is the problem? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's saying that it could reasonably be redirected to any number of localities or school districts, so a disambiguation page should be substituted for the usual redirect Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I'm saying. Redirects need to go to a sensible place. This page either needs renaming first (to "XXX Primary Schoo1, LOCATION") or needs to go to a dab page (in fact, it probably needs the content replacing with a dab page) which lists all the known possible St Lukes Primary Schools. If that's the best way of going about it then go ahead and do it - the page is going to be either deleted or redirected anyway. But the worst possible solution in this case (and cases like it) is redirecting to a single location. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:22, 6 January 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.