Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 12:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Blue Coat School

[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)

As far as I know, old is not the same as notable. With 3 of it 5 sources being the school website and a dead link, we have little proof. A WP:BEFORE gives me the idea that this school fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 12:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have considered this one carefully, especially as it is a primary school and these are typically considered even less notable than secondary and beyond. This particular institution is old indeed, but it has had some interesting coverage over the years. A search on newspapers.com has returned this (from 1886), this, this and this from a very brief search. There was a fairly significant editorial article in 1955 here with memories from former pupils. There is definitely further newspaper coverage as well and especially in the case of the latter of those I linked, seems reasonably substantial. That 3rd article from 1964 discussed a transformation of the school and afforded a fair amount of prose. I think someone who is willing to put the effort in could develop this and demonstrate sufficient notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Not sure if you have seen my !vote here yet, but I am wondering what your view is on the quality of what I found (which isn't exhaustive) and whether you consider it sufficient? It's up to you if you withdraw this one or not. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plain and well: what you list here and not in the article is insufficient. It is the article that must prove its notability, not AfD. The Banner talk 19:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely baffled by your response and wonder if you understand what an AfD actually is? An article doesn't have to be touched during an AfD, as it is not where the discussion takes place to determine that notability (that said, I often improve an article if !voting keep). I personally believe notability can be established and have offered a rationale for that view. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Bungle (whom I must thank for finding the sources). Yes, old ≠ notable, but old can mean more coverage in reliable (etc) sources, which Bungle has demonstrated in this case. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep old is not notable, per se, but with each year the more likely a source will be found. After 300 years, I’d be shocked if no sources existed, though not shocked if we didn’t find them online. At least so long as it’s in a large English speaking country, where most of our editors reside. The sources Bungle has provided are WP:SIGCOV demonstrating that the article meets GNG. Jacona (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with any other British school of this age. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well done by Bungle, who identifies articles that show the significant coverage in reliable sources that the article currently lacks. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2022 (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.