Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kempshott Junior 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kempshott Junior School[edit]

Found speedy-tagged, but not speediable. This is a hopeless sorry excuse for an article, nothing more than a directory entry, sure shouldn't be here in its present form, and doesn't seem to be remotely notable as far as I can tell. It does, however, have the dreaded s-word in it. Opabinia regalis 05:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a directory. MER-C 05:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because the only sentence of substance, "Kempshott Infants School feed children into the juniors", actually makes no sense. Could it have been prodded? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means there's another school for younger students that feeds into this one. Prodding school articles is distinctly unreliable these days. Opabinia regalis 05:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate article about the district or region. Yet more annoying schoolcruft from the professional school-stub-spammers. I'd say delete, but maybe more merging will help encourage these people to contribute to useful articles. Xtifr _tälk 11:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Patstuart. Can't somebody think of the children? Sandstein 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the article on canibalism ;-) LittleOldMe 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Kempshott. WP:NOT has to be one of the most abused criteria for deletion in all of Wikipedia. Many articles with significant meaningful content are targeted for deletion because of WP:NOT claiming that the article is a directory entry, when in fact it's a productive article. But if any article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, it's this one, which consists of little more than a name and address. Alansohn 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean there isn't even any real content. I wouldn't object to making redirect however. JoshuaZ 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the fact that there's nothing there simply means that a merge will preserve the history (there's really nothing else to preserve), and I see no strong reason not to preserve the history if we make a redirect. Xtifr _tälk 03:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In agreement. However, I don't see anything useful to merge, so just making it a redirect makes more sense. JoshuaZ 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst Merge Albatross2147 22:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Any reason for that? JoshuaZ 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Redirect if necessary. Eusebeus 12:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm inclined to say delete without redirect. It's unlikely that someone will accidentally type in "Kempshott Juinor School" (besides, it would give a confusing search in google), and it's my opinion that we don't want to encourage people to create lousy articles like this. They didn't even bother to check that the formatting looked right. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a directory listing. Principal Schoolswatter 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of notability and assertion thereof. Ohconfucius 09:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability or remarkability or even verifiability, entry appears to be less than a stub and more a listing. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WMMartin 17:43, 27 November 2006 (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.