Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Street 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Street Primary School[edit]

[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)

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 08:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May or may not be notable as a school, but the building is certainly notable as a Category B listed building per WP:GEOFEAT.[1] -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article is about the school which clearly does not meet any notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says the article can only be about the school and not the clearly notable building? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not a clearly notable building. It's an nice old building. Read the report [2]. There is nothing notable about this building. "Presumed" is not a guarantee of notability - guidelines are very clear about this. "may be" does not mean "always". If you're going to claim it's notable based on a presumtion, that presumption can be questioned and in that case you need to provide evidence of notability. This means you need multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources that demonstrate why this is notable. A description of a building is not evidence of notability, especially when the single source states, "These records are not definitive historical accounts or a complete description of the building(s)". // Timothy :: talk 16:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable suggests that there is "nothing notable about this building"? In what way does These records are not definitive historical accounts or a complete description of the building(s) suggest that this means the building is not notable; it's merely a disclaimer added to every single entry on the database. Surely you're not seriously suggesting that Scotland's official heritage agency is not a reliable source? Sorry, but this deletion mania is getting out of hand. How on earth do you think this is serving Wikipedia? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The source you're depending on shows that there is nothing notable about the building; its a nice old building that is being preserved. I'm sure it's reliable and it says "These records are not definitive historical accounts or a complete description of the building(s)" They're reliable and they state the record is not complete and not definitive. If you think this is notable, then add multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources that address the topic directly and in depth showing its notability. If this is "clearly notable" this should be easy to do. I don't believe these sources exist. Why do you think Wikipedia has notability guidelines? I am not suggesting anything about "presumed to the notable", I am stating the fact that a presumption is not a guarantee of notability. I am challenging that presumption and if you can provide multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources that address the subject directly and in depth, then the article will be kept. The hyperbole is not necessary and I have an 85% [3] match rate on my AfD votes, I'm far from perfect (and I nominate, not just vote),but its far better than your 61% [4] (which doesn't appear to have any nominations). No one person is the judge, it is up the the community to decide based on guidelines and policy. // Timothy :: talk 17:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the building's listing in Scotland as Category B: "Buildings of special architectural or historic interest which are major examples of a particular period, style or building type." WP:GEOFEAT applies: "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (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.