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 Wokingham#Education . well established consensus on primary school articles (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bearwood Primary School[edit]

Bearwood Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Merger was proposed well over 3 years ago, but no action was taken. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As un-notable. It is perhaps unfortunate that this article survived its first AfD in 2006. I hope that standards for inclusion have improved since then. Fact is there are almost 17,000 primary schools in the UK. In my opinion that means that it needs to be pretty special to get an encyclopaedia article. As for promises back in 2006 that it would be improved, there is little or no improvement and there is most definitely still no assertion of why this school is notable. The only piece of notability I could grant is that if you take the history of this article seriously, it appears the whole school has moved from the West Midlands to Berkshire at some point in the last 5 years (see article in 2006. In reality, I doubt that is the case Pit-yacker (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing Admin: I have removed a list of pupils at the school that was added by 89.243.46.252 in March. If the article is kept it may be worth considering erasing these edits as this, IMHO, could well have serious privacy issues. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Topics are not required to be "special" in any way. What they require are independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG and this topic has them, e.g. this report of 15 pages. Our editing policy is to keep such material while it is also our policy not to delete notable material just because some people don't like it. Warden (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no claim to notability is being made in the article and I can't find anything in the edits which could be classed as being notable. Really, these sorts of articles need sources if they're to be kept. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but REDIRECT to its locality per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AFD, in which the clear majority of the !voters are !voting delete, serves to bolster the proposition that we might benefit from a shoring up of our notability guideline for schools to reflect whatever the consensus is. At this article, at this point, the consensus appears to be to delete. I'm less concerned with what our ultimate position is than with the fact that different editors disagree about some of the peripheral content of what the consensus is. And, of course, I am sensitive to the fact that consensus can change. In any event, a clearer explication of our consensus in policy might streamline school afds. Again, my concern is more with us accurately stating and reflecting consensus in a guideline than with which approach we adopt.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Astute general comment by Fmph re guideline for schools.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Redirect' is one of the official closures, and indeed all policies and/or guidelines recommend seeking any solution that leaves deletion as a last resort. This does not mean that Wikipdia is inclusionist per se, but caution is the best policy where deletion is uncertain to be absolutely necessary, and where AfD !votes (either way) are not founded on policy, guidelines, or precedent. AfD is not the venue for debating policy, but it can certainly determine a recognised precedent, as it has done over the years on a vast scale for redirecting school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Per above. This particular educational system does not appear to be notable. If people are to provide more citations for this article, that may benifet it, I will change my opinion. Superlayna (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is, without doubt, the best primary school^{[citation needed]} in that part of Wokingham LEA but that's a personal opinion and not sourced. It will have had lots of local coverage but not anything wider I'm afraid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ofsted reports are part of a statutory inspection process which all the 16,000+ maintained primary schools undergo. The existence of the report goes with the existence of the institution and therefore cannot be said to establish notability.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the WP:GNG, source need three attributes to establish notability:

1. Independence
2. Detail
3. Reliability

Existence is not a relevant factor for the subject - we cover some topics that don't exist such as fiction. What does have to exist are sources and we have those in this case. Warden (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The reasons why inspection reports do not establish notability for English schools has been explained above.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I thought the drive to delete most school articles died out 5 years ago, it is a pity it is still with us. Add all the missing schools too, complete coverage would be fantastic. This is an encyclopedia, not a ranking organization. Zero^talk 00:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Sindlesham per standard practice, as this is a non-notable elementary school. Carrite (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge with Sindlesham and preserve the information about this primary school, without having a separate article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, which parts of the article do you see as encyclopaedic and needing to be merged into the Sindlesham article? Fmph (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG, no other reason to delete. De Guerre (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / Redirect to Wokingham#Education as per consistent recent procedure (eg: Cavendish School (Camden), WP:Articles for deletion/Grove Primary School, Frimley). The proposed redirect already mentions a similar nearby private school. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wokingham#Education per standard practice. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A real existing school deserves its own dedicated entry. Per the Colonel and De Guerre, sources are present to meet GNG, so no reason to destroy the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm simply trying to follow what I've been told is convention with primary schools, and have articles comport to them. Some editors have even encouraged me to simply redirect articles such as this one, without any AfD nomination or discussion, because the consensus on this issue is so clear. While 4 editors have !voted Keep so far (Kud's seems more of a redirect or merge), we also have what seems to be a consensus above that the article should not be kept as a stand-alone article (though editors differ as to whether the result should be delete, redirect, or merge). I'm happy to follow whatever the consensus is, but I've been told repeatedly that, absent unusual circumstances, our convention is not to keep such articles as stand-alone articles (just as our convention is, I'm told, to keep articles on high schools, even if they lack substantial RS coverage). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. Per "concensus can change", maybe its best to stop destroying these articles despite any past precedent. As some of our best editors often say, a merge is often almost as destructive as a delete. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that consensus can change, and think it would be better if our consensus (whatever it is) were enshrined in our notability guideline. But if I don't simply trust the word of others as to what our consensus is, but base my view on the past 150 or so school AfDs, it appears that at a minimum the consensus is not to keep such articles as stand-alones. Some articles have closed as redirect, a number have closed as delete (though editors sometimes assert that is not the consensus; perhaps that is an example of it changing, and a reason for us to enshrine whatever the consensus is in our notability guideline), and a few have closed as merge or "editors should feel free to merge any RS-supported material". Again -- I'm simply seeking conformity to consensus, and if consensus were to keep such articles as stand-alones, I would be happy to support that as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet WP:GNG or school guidelines. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:16, 6 January 2012 (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.