Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Place Primary School

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Dungannon Primary School. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union Place Primary School

This nomination also includes Drumglass Primary School

Delete. First the school is no more. It is an ex school. Second it is not now and was not in its lifetime a notable school, the more so since it was a Primary school, and these are ten a penny in the UK of GB and NI. So it is simply a piece of non notable information, nay an item of indiscriminate information, and fails in so many ways. WP:NOT an indiscriminate (etc), WP:Notability simple because it isn't. And because it isn't there are no ghits, which is hardly surprising. Since the article is of today's vintage I suspect it may even be speediable. I bow to a more knowledgeable head over that. Fiddle Faddle

  • Strong keep, obviously notable school, as all schools are. Suggest nominator withdraw nomination, as school AFDs are a waste of everyone's time since deletionists fail by default in the case of no consensus. --ForbiddenWord 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would probably be worth showing that you have read the article before stating an opinion. The nomination and the article(s) both state that the schools no longer exist. The epithet "deletionist" is really aggravating. In order to keep Wikipedia worthwhile the dross has to be removed. Think of it as a process of winnowing the wheat from the chaff. Seeking to include all the schools under the sun and adding the defunct ones is not really in that spirit. Fiddle Faddle 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be true, but there's nothing that makes me think that Wikipedia's most precious articles (school articles) should be "winnowed" and not allowed room for expansion and organic growth. --ForbiddenWord 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • room for expansion and organic growth is a euphemism for "leave it alone and maybe someone will do something to it in the future." If these articles are precious as you state, please make them notable such that they survive. Merely asking for a "stay of execution in case some future fellow passes by" is a recipe for a load of non notable stub and sub-stub articles. I realise you take the topic of schools very seriously. An excellent use of that seriousness would be to research genuine notability and assert it within the articles. Fiddle Faddle 14:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forbidden, you have now claimed in multiple articles that all schools are notable and insitsted that they are Wikipedia's "most precious articles" (apparently more important than featured articles or articles about basic things like light, carbon or biographies of influential people like Buddha or George Washington) without giving any explanation or grounds for this. To be blunt, it is getting tiresome and borderline disruptive. Please try to contribute something useful to these discussions. JoshuaZ 02:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's preposterous. Stating my opinion is not disruptive. I am trying to make my view on the matter heard in these discussions, and I am not going to be discouraged just because certain editors disagree with me. --ForbiddenWord 14:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It may become disruptive when you make the same assertion again and again and (here is the important part) make no effort to back the assertion up. The fact that many editors disagree with the assertion certainly doesn't help matter. I'm not attempting to discourage you, however, your repeated assertions with no attempt to back them up is significantly reducing the signal to noise ratio in the school AfDs. (tI might be less disruptive if you actually tried to do some minimal research to the school articles or bothered cleaning up/expanding any of the myriad school articles you insist on keeping). JoshuaZ 19:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are defunct schools. They fail WP:Schools. Catchpole 14:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Primary schools are not inherently notable. They are indeed "ten a penny" in the UK. Without some other claim to fame, and considering the fact that this school no longer exists, this article is pointless. Someone should probably consider changing red to black in List of Primary schools in Northern Ireland. -- IslaySolomon 14:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. If next Afd (for the current school) decides to keep the school (which I'm not proposing), a line or two about these two schools can be added there. Fram 14:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, the fact that the school has closed does not make it less notable. Second, the school is distinct from others because it was affiliated with the Presbyterian Church and its closing was a result of an attempt to create an integrated education system in Northern Ireland. In other words, this is more interesting than an elementary school in suburban New Jersey. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-notable elementary schools that are no longer in existence and unrecognized by Google? I'll go with strong delete. -- Kicking222 17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete both. They aren't linked to from anywhere significant so they've got no chance of improvement. Google doens't know it exists. The half-sentance it gets in Dungannon Primary School is sufficient. Need I say more? Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being affiliated with a random church does not automatically confer notability, nor does closing as a result of education reforms in Northern Ireland. The notability in that case would be the reforms themselves, not the affected schools. This article does not assert any notability. Resolute 03:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm inclusionist, but this is a bit much. --Dhartung | Talk 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, IslaySolomon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and significant. Piccadilly 22:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Resolute, Ultra-Loser and partially Islay. While I agree with some of the keepers who have pointed out that whether or not a school is defunct should not affect whether or not we have an article, these schools would be not notable even if they were still around. JoshuaZ 02:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 03:49, 30 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Union_Place_Primary_School&oldid=1138748943"