Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Fox Elementary School (Bathurst, New Brunswick)

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 redirect to Anglophone North School District. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Fox Elementary School (Bathurst, New Brunswick)[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Prod was redirected to school district, as per customary practice, but redirect was reverted as well. So here we are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per reason User: One! gave. Knox490§§ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A completely unsourced article about an elementary school. Not only does the school appear not to be notable, the article does not even make a credible claim of its significance. The school clearly exists http://tfes.nbed.nb.ca/ so the original redirect to the school district was the correct action and it should be restored. Meters (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Meters and longstanding practice. John from Idegon (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we would need to delete all primary schools in, say, Category:Elementary schools in Arizona and Category:Middle schools in Arizona in order to be consistent. I'm unsure we want to do that. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spem Reduxit (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment - yes that is the consensus, that elementary schools, unlike secondary schools, are not notable simply by existing. Each elementary school must individually pass WP:GNG, which this one clearly doesn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the addition of two news articles and a picture, the wiki now meets WP:N guidelines, and the prior votes should be voided, or at least updated. Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
striking duplicate vote by the article's creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Terry Fox is notable. A school is not notable because it is named for him. Adding a picture of Terry Fox to the article does nothing to address the school's lack of notability. The two sources added to the article do nothing to show notability:
1. Passing mention of the school in an article about the lack of required annual asbestos inspections since asbestos mitigation in 12 schools in 2004. The only mention of the school is: "There is no asbestos in the following schools: ... Terry Fox Elementary School ..." I have no objection to adding the material to the article, but it does not contribute to notability.
2. Terry Fox's brother visited nine schools in New Brunswick to tell Terry's story. One of the schools was Terry Fox Elementary School. This does not contribute to the school's notability. Meters (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per norm --NoGhost (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- onel5969 and Knox490: Would a redirect to the school district be a acceptable outcome for you? That is the usual procedure as this non notable institution may at some point be searched on Wikipedia. If you're agreeable to that, it will be easier for the closer to assess a consensus and avoid relisting. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an excellent idea, User:John from Idegon. Knox490 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Absolutely, John from Idegon - Would have preferred that route to begin with, but redirect kept getting reverted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was my assumption of what you were trying to do. Unless there is a specific argument raised against a redirect in an AFD I figure any Delete !votes will likely be happy with reasonable redirect. Certainly I am if a good redirect is raised after I !vote delete. Meters (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect restore the redirect and place {{r from school}} on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make some comments about a few concerning comments above:
- The fact it is primary is not a reason to delete or to keep an article on a school, per the recent schooloutcomes RFC. (Yes, that's the other implication regarding SCHOOLOUTCOMES.)
- No topics are presumed notable simply by existing, whether schools or otherwise, unless reliable, secondary sourcing (that is not regional in nature--ref WP:NORG) can be found to indicate that topic's notability.
I personally have no issue with a redirect given that's where the above users are coalescing. --Izno (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC only dealt with the topic of the presumed notability of secondary schools. It did not touch how we should deal with pre-secondary educational institutions. The argument for redirect is that we have for over a decade redirected these schools as a matter of course. This is because the people who tend to be searching for these schools tend to be children, which causes two issues: First, we want to avoid the recreation of these articles via a redlink. Yes, they could do it anyway, but a redirect drastically cuts the chances of an 8 year old doing it. Second, its useful for 8 year olds to be redirected to their hometown or their school board. They are looking for something, so we give them something that is useful for the reader. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is concerning Izno. If it was my comment about the school existing and hence deserving a redirect perhaps I was unclear. I simply meant that since it exists but is non-notable it is a viable redirect. If it were a hoax I would !vote Delete. Not sure what I would do with a non-notable former school, but that's not germane here. The only argument for keeping or deleting based on nothing but existence was by the article creator (I have now tagged it). I see no problem with the notability discussion. Meters (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comment re "primary" was due to the nom's statement primary school; the few per-nom !votes, your elementary school reference in your !vote, subsequently John's "per Meters and longstanding practice", Spem's WP:POINTy comment, and One's response to such. I see the conclusion of the RFC as commenting only on secondary schools now and that the previous (and current) guidance re primary schools in SCHOOLOUTCOMES (not that it should be cited--maybe that should simply be removed due to NORG/GNG) was that they already needed to meet the bar w.r.t. GNG/NORG. Consider me educated.
The comment re "existence" was due to One's followup to Spem (that is the consensus, that elementary schools, unlike secondary schools, are not notable simply by existing), which, post-RFC is incorrect--you did not appear to pick that up Meters.
The comment re "redirect" was really just a "I don't see a need to delete since we routine merge/redirect unnotable topics to greater-relevant topics" but didn't word it like so. So don't worry about that. --Izno (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (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.