Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicorn Primary School

:{{la|Unicorn Primary School}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unicorn_Primary_School Stats])

:({{Find sources|Unicorn Primary School}})

NN primary school. We don't generally keep stand-alone articles for primary schools. Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep The school is notable per WP:N because there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources such as [http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2263629/urn/134061.pdf this]. Andrew (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

::Every such primary school has such a report. And we generally don't keep stand-alone articles for such schools. Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

:::Furthermore -- the report is a primary source. We need to find that it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

::::* No, inspection reports are secondary sources for the following reasons:

:::::# They are "one-step removed" as they are written by an independent outsider

:::::# They are based upon primary sources such as the work of the pupils and the school records

:::::# They are works of analysis which present conclusions

:::::# They are written for publication and are well-distributed

:::::We should additionally note that they are written by qualified professionals with plenty of accountability and oversight. They are therefore high-quality sources. As they contain pages of details about the operation and performance of the school, they meet WP:SIGCOV in every way. Andrew (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::*Many primary schools in England have an Ofsted report, but that does not automatically mean each of them is notable for the purposes of Wikipedia.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable primary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bromley - As far as I know having an Ofsted report doesn't automatically mean it's a notable school?, Anyway once deleted it'll probably be recreated so to save time I just say Redirect it instead. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

:* The test of notability is described at WP:SIGCOV — that there be sources which are independent, reliable and detailed. Ofsted reports are perfect for our purpose as they are all this and more, being professional and neutral in tone. They are far superior to the sensational journalism which passes for sources in many other topics. The nominator's complaint is that the school is much like many other schools but that is nothing to do with notability, as we define it. This is the issue described at WP:MILL but that is not policy. Our actual policy is to have articles about schools or to merge the material into some higher-level article about the locality. Per our editing policy, we do not delete such material. Andrew (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

:::If thats our actual policy then we have been ignoring it fort the last 10 years. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES shows that what we actually do is delete primaries which lack significant reliable sources. Atlas-maker (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

::::* No. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that school articles are frequently nominated for deletion but that "schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged ...to... the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." And that's the essential nature of WP:PRESERVE too. So, both our policy and our practise is not to delete in such cases. Andrew (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::: I'm not sure I see what the problem is here. A "redirect" to the education/schools section of the lowest level locality is effectively a "delete" in Wikipedia terms, since it involves removing the original school article once its content (if relevant) has been merged to the appropriate section of the redirect target.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::* You're got it backwards. A merger is a "keep" in Wikipedia terms because we keep the page and its edit history as a convenient way of attributing the contributors. It is also convenient to keep the page to refer back to if there are details to check. It is also convenient to maintain the page so that, if the topic turns out to have more notability than first seemed, it will be easy to expand. Deletion is only used when we don't ever want any of the content. The deletion function makes the pages and its edit history invisible to most users and so it is quite disruptive. This disruption is the reason that the delete function is tightly controlled. Only admins may use the delete function and only when they have permission to do so. AFD exists to provide such permission but participants should understand the nature of the process and the related legal licensing requirements. Please don't confuse editorial decisions about the scope and structure of topics with deletion. Deletion is to get rid of material which we don't want at all. If we going to cover the topic in some way then that's a matter of ordinary editing. Andrew (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::*Phil is correct that we generally either delete or redirect these non-notable primary school articles, and rid ourselves of the stand-alone. The fact that we may (as here) lose uncited material to the effect that "Every classroom [in the non-notable school] has a cloakroom" is not seen as a loss. Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::::*Andrew -- I hope you will take to heart the consensus reaction to your assertions at this and concurrent primary school AfDs. Epeefleche (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to Bromley#Education - non-notable school as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Atlas-maker (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete then Redirect to Bromley#Education per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.  Philg88 ^♦talk 12:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless a unicorn appears at the school and takes residence. Szzuk (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of schools in Bromley#Primary schools. Redrect is absolutely the correct action for a primary school that fails WP:ORG but the school is too inconsequential for the main article. I have merged key facts to the suggested target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

: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.