Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastman’s Royal Naval Academy

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. Nomination Withdrawn - thanks for the extra eyes. (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastman’s Royal Naval Academy[edit]

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

Primary schools are not considered inherantly notable and the sourcing here is inadequate. Google - nothing obviously notable, google books - NIL result and Google books - 3 mentions as a place of education. Nothing here to pass GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the creator of the article, I don't much care. I created it only in order to resolve several red links. I agree that the sourcing is thin, though I would remark that Google is not an infallible measure of notability of historical articles.
If the article isn't notable, nor are the links to it, so if the article is deleted, I ask the requester to take responsibility for going to the pages that link to it and cleaning up the links. Stanning (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Google is not infallible but I have made an effort and reviewed the sources provided so really its down to anyone wanting to keep this to demonstrate the article meets the GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A historical school like this one is less likely to have on-line coverage. In this case, we have several pages of reasonably detailed content about the school in Jonathan Betts' book about Rupert Gould and published by Oxford University Press (although, for some reason, Google Books displays this content inconsistently and without the usual linking apparatus)[1]. GBooks also turns up a footnote in another book[2] pointing to a 9-page article about the school in the Mariner's Mirror (per the footnote, the reference is: H. Owen, "Eastman's Royal Naval Academy Southsea", Mariner's Mirror, vol. 77, 1991, pp. 379-87). This is enough to show that sufficient sourcing exists, albeit not easily accessible on line. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep For a small 19th century school, I would consider the sourcing to meet basic notability. It has rather more comment on it than I'd expect most schools to achieve, thus indicating that this particular school was indeed unusually noted. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that articles on primary schools are usually deleted, and I would usually support such deletions. However, in this case its age and its unusual nature (i.e. its ties to the Royal Navy) make it notable in my opinion. In addition, I'm not convinced it was purely a primary school in the modern sense of the word, as issues of The Times from the 19th century show individuals being commissioned directly into the Royal Navy and Royal Marines from it at the age of at least 15 or 16. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:19, 12 October 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.