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. I almost relisted this as the idea of redirection has been mentioned but not thoroughly discussed, but it seems clear consensus favors keeping this in some form, so the deletion discussion is pretty much over. Discussion of whether to redirect can and should continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Crow[edit]

Rachel Crow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Eliminated from The X Factor. She is a POTENTIAL Disney artist. But IF and UNTIL that happens, doesn't seem that this girl rates an article. Safiel (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are confirmed reports Rachel Crow will have a career with Disney / Nickleodeon productions very soon. Almost all American Idol contestants have pages while they are competing. I think The X Factor carries equal weight to American Idol, so contestants in X Factor should all have, in principle, pages of their own. werldwayd (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found other sources, such as this one, which seem to confer notability (she's the subject, and it discusses her career after her now-concluded stint on reality TV). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Basalisk. Gage (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as it was once upon a time. She is only notable within The X Factor (USA), and the same rules should apply as with contestants from the UK version - only those who go on to gain notability for a second thing should have an article, such as releasing a single or album, or becoming an actor or something else. The list entry is good enough for the time being. –anemoneprojectors– 15:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - per disney, per source from Basalisk.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom and AnemoneP. Per WP:1E, references so not support notability or sufficient coverage per WP:BAND or WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 1 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.

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. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISAF Youth Sailing World Championships[edit]

ISAF Youth Sailing World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Youth games are normally considered non-notable. Fails wp:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have to disagree with your assertion about youth competitions in general. Plus, a google search throws up plenty of secondary sources. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure about your interpretation of GNG, since I've found a host of sources including [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Youth World Champions are all over wikipedia and the internet. They are the feeding ground for the Olympics with notable Olympic Medalist having competed in the event. Belcher, Page, Ainslie, etc. I admit the article needs work but it was a starting point. Not sure were your interpretation comes from. (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2011 (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.

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. Dead links do not qualify an article for deletion. Notability established with significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panacea Biotec[edit]

Panacea Biotec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

delete The artile main reference does not work Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Dead links are an issue for cleanup, not deletion. A Google News search shows abundant RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Dead links are not rationale for deletion, but both references in the article work anyway - I guess they were fixed since the nomination. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If people will notice the reference "New vaccines to lift sales at Panacea Biotec". International Herald Tribune. 18 August 2005. Retrieved 2009-03-05.... does not take us anywhere. also the second link is form 'AccessMyLibrary advertising network' so not trusted. If people can add references form relevent sources then we can think about this article.Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 03:12, 17 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, BusterD (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy KeepDead links are not a reason for deletion. Buggie111 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no requirement for sources to be freely available online, so the references in the article are perfectly valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added several current references to the article. It is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in India. As noted by several people above, reference problems are not a reason for deletion, as long as the subject itself is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2011 (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.

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. --MuZemike 02:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windswept House: A Vatican Novel[edit]

Windswept House: A Vatican Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable crank roman a clef by a marginal novelist, with no critical attention. Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Critical attention can be found here [9]. Minimally, merge and redirect to the author. Pburka (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Orangemike, and redirect to Malachi Martin. Unfortunately this piece and its "key" posted on traditio serves as a lightning rod for kooks who think it is a true story and inject it as source material into BLP's mentioned in the "Key".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Malachi Martin. I wasn't able to find anything that shows that this book has been reviewed by reliable sources, the key point being "reliable". There's a lot of coverage in a specific set of websites but they aren't generally considered to be notable or reliable enough to be a reliable source. Redirecting to the author should be a good compromise on this since most of what I did find focused on the author just as much if not more than the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Changing vote to keep per sources found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Keep. The main motive for it submission for removal is purely based on POV. Comments like "kooks" and "marginal novelist" do nothing to give the impression that a balanced thought has been mustard to bolster a "delete" argument. An advisor to THREE popes surely has to the credentials to have a page on Wikipedia, especially when the book is reported to contain 80% fact. Forbes Magazine: "No spiritual journey is complete with a Vatican page-turner by Malachi Martin" Reviews. Whilst you may need agree with his text, I am sure that you agree that this is not the motive for a deletion --Anthony of the Desert (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NYT [10] Chicago Tribune [11] (paywall, but reprinted in the Spartanburg Herald Journal [12]) Publishers Weekly [13] Kirkus Reviews [14] 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The NYT article is repeated by two editors. The Forbes quote is unsupported by Anthony, although it may indeed be verifiable. Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews review almost every book that's published. Anthony, Martin does have his own article. This is the book we're talking about, not the author. Despite your statement, Anthony, about "motive", you just recently tried to restore the offensive and policy non-compliant material about who each character equates to in real life (according to the author and whatever sources support the "key"). Unfortunately, the notability guideline for having a book article at Wikipedia is very low. The only criterion this particular book could fit into is the reviews, and it's a close call. I would exclude Kirkus and PW for the reason stated above, and we are left with the Times and the Spartunburg papers (can't address the Forbes reference because I haven't seen the review, if indeed it's a review). I don't think the coverage is pervasive enough or of significant depth to include the book. I remind everyone that it is only a guideline and can be overridden by consensus: "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the book" and "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be more accurate to say that Publishers Weekly reviews a small fraction of published books. According to our own article they review approximately 7000 books per year, while the United States alone publishes nearly 300 000 titles per year. Pburka (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the information. I was speaking mostly anecdotally and I should have checked my "facts". However, after reading the Book reviews section of our article on PW, it is probably not the best source to establish notability for a book. For example, the reviews are anonymous and short (as is the one for this book) - hardly in-depth. The reviewers are paid a small fee to produce a review. One reviewer said her reviews were altered for mysterious reasons. I would give a PW review little weight.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I did try to restore the "offensive" material as I felt that as it was referenced, the reader could make their own conclussions as to its validity and authenticity. As it turned out to be "non-compliant material", I didn't pursue the issue. The issue here is yet another example of despotic "Guardians of the Wikipedia realm" who try to take a sythe to any page that they do not care for, based solely on POV. Maybe they should follow a more democratic road and discuss issues and try to amend them via the 'talkpage' rather going straight for deletion. --Anthony of the Desert (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Without addressing your sillier points, I would just say that sometimes the spirit and/or the letter of WP:BLPREMOVE requires removal first and discussion after. By the way, has anyone ever taken traditio.com to WP:RSN?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It probably needs to go there, the site is little more than a glorified blog, hosted by a person claiming to be a priest and posting anonymosly as "Father Moderator". I suppose it could be reliable when discussing antisemitism among sedevacantists or things of that nature.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP There are thousands of articles about books (less of interest or value) than this one, so the point of deleting this can only by subjective. He was an important author in catholicism at the end of the XXth century. This book is his last and most important one. It deals with the infiltration of the roman catholic church by outside ennemies in order to destroy it, an is based on facts. The article should be expanded, not deleted.--Stijn Calle (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment, this discussion is about this book, not thousands of other articles. Martin was an important author to maybe a few fringe groups, but not Catholicism as a whole; this book is not even particularly well-written for him and it is a novel, Stijn, you need to remember that when it comes to BLP. Persinally, Martin's earlier works were better before he reinvented himself as the "Conspiracy Secret Agent Attacked by Satan disguised as a Pitbull sent by a 45thDegree Mason" Priest.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The policy Mike is talking about is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While there are enough sources to make me change my vote from redirect, saying that things should be kept because worse articles exist or because it's important (WP:ITSIMPORTANT) aren't good arguments for it to be kept. Odds are that this will be kept, but I want you to understand that you need to back up your opinion with things along the lines of WP:NBOOK. Things aren't decided on a vote, but on the strengths of the arguments given. I've seen pages deleted with just one "delete" opinion and pages kept on that same premise, so believe me when I say that the amount of opinions in either direction does not sway the admins.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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.

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denbigh Community Primary School[edit]

Denbigh Community Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable school. Buggie111 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable. As far as I can tell, "Good" is the second of four Ofsted inspection ratings. That would suggest that in the opinion of Ofsted, this school is nothing other than average. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Run of the mill primary school with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether a school is average or famous is irrelevant because our notability guideline is not concerned with these things. All that matters are independent reliable sources and this topic has them, e.g. this detailed report of 14 pages. Warden (talk) 21:07, 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 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it lacks the level of significant coverage I'd want to come close to meeting the GNG. A redirect in this case would be potentially very confusing for users looking for a school in Denbigh. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Howdon#Education where the school is mentioned, 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) 08:11, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:11, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:20, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbourne School and Nursery[edit]

Hillbourne School and Nursery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Schools prior to secondary school are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Run of the mill primary school with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether a school is average or famous is irrelevant because our notability guideline is not concerned with these things. All that matters are independent reliable sources and this topic has them, e.g. this detailed report of 15 pages. Warden (talk) 21:07, 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 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article makes no case for notability and seems to fail to meet the level of sourcing I'd be looking for for it to meet the GNG een if such notability were claimed. Unless that can be accomplished then I'd tend towards delete at this stage. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of schools in Poole where it is already listed, per standard procedure. (Already listed for merging since March 2008). 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) 08:16, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:16, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:24, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 Schwarz Stein. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Garden[edit]

Perfect Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable single release. Emeraude (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Schwarz Stein - the song itself is not notable and we have an article on the artist. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Schwarz Stein - the song doesn't have much content and isn't that notable. All that could be merged into the artist article. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page by the same band as an equally non-notable single]:

Current (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Emeraude (talk) 11:44, 1 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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ching Shin Elementary and Junior High School and Kindergarten[edit]

Ching Shin Elementary and Junior High School and Kindergarten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Junior high schools and below are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Run of the mill primary school with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wenshan District#Education 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) 08:26, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:26, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franciscan Foreign Kindergarten[edit]

Franciscan Foreign Kindergarten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Kindergartens are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Run of the mill kindergarten with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill kindergarten, not even a primary school that could be uncontroversially redirected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hill House Kindergarten[edit]

Hill House Kindergarten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Kindergartens are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Run of the mill kindergarten school with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 23:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not widely-covered by reliable sources; no indication of notability. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill kindergarten, not even a primary school that could be uncontroversially redirected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etonkids Huizhi Kindergarten[edit]

Etonkids Huizhi Kindergarten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Kindergartens are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Run of the mill kindergarten school with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 23:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill kindergarten, not even a primary school that could be uncontroversially redirected.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Academy Kindergarten[edit]

Royal Academy Kindergarten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Kindergartens are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Also does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG.Edison (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill kindergarten, not even a primary school that could be uncontroversially redirected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Minneman[edit]

Paul Minneman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prolix biography of an obscure engineer, padded beyond recognition by addition of vast swaths of material on projects in which he played some behind-the-scenes role. Seems to lack any solid assertions of notability and be violative of WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are perhaps two key questions. One is notability, the second regarding the availability of the verifiable links to corroborate the information supporting notability. This man at age 35 was one of two people who proposed the Minuteman-II missile program to the US defense department, he ran the program that resulted in the 747 that carried and facilitated flight and landing tests for the space shuttle; made the proposal for Boeing that led to one of the first major PRT system in the US at Morgantown WV, and served as the head of systems engineering to design and execute it. If we assume that additional data can be identified to further corroborate these statements, is this series of contributions to aerospace and transportation substantive enough to achieve notability? Note that so many of these 20, 30, 40 and 50+ year-old documents have not been in a readily accessible form, but are now being released and brought online.

Miklminn (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also have the problem that he worked for Boeing. Which has been...lax (yeah, we'll go with that) when it comes to preserving company history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Few references to establish the notability of this person Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional discussion with Boeing historical personnel indicate that additional historical documents are forthcoming in stages over the next 8 weeks. Miklminn (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO requires the availability of published works on this person produced by an independent reliable source to establish their notability. Boeing historical documents aren't useful in this regards. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is clearly written as a tribute article by single-purpose account (likely family member), failing WP:MEMORIAL. As for his notability, his accomplishments seem no different than any other engineer who worked on those projects. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources (as that term is used here) to substantiate notability. Agree that this smacks of a WP:MEMORIAL. ukexpat (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • clarification - this nomination is by no means meant as disparaging the work done by Minneman and his colleagues. I will quote the chorus of the filksong "Everyman":

For I’m the man who took up tools and laid out the designs

Of starships, I’m the one who built their sleek and burnished lines.

I’m everyman who ever fashioned cold refinéd steel

Into the dreams of spaceflight, I’m the one who made them real.

• • I honor their contributions in every appropriate way. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:26, 3 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.

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 as the nomination was withdrawn with no dissenting voices. TerriersFan (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misr American College[edit]

Misr American College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Middle schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite so. Unfortunately, as the article says quite clearly, this is also a high school. Keep. Emeraude (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah -- so it does. I stand corrected. It is not in the lead, but there it is, 2 paras prior to "MAC achieves through its dynamic, internationally experienced personnel... a blend of highly qualified foreign nationals and Egyptians, provide stellar education for students", and 2 before "The only downside to the school's system is the fact that the school itself is quite suffocating, for it barely holds more than two grades in the courtyard. The school is so small that the student body is too big to fit in the courtyard during break time, let alone do any extra curricular activities due to lack of space." It has other problems, but the aforementioned one is not one of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not sure what your point is. That it's a lousy article? Agreed. Needs improving. But are you withdrawing your nomination? Emeraude (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I am withdrawing it--as I said, it had other problems, but the aforementioned is not one of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a K-12 school according to its website here. High schools are usually kept per editor consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a high school. No reason why it doesn't meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a G12 high school.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2011 (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.

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 Speedy delete, a WP:SNOW for Christmas. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stars of Warner Brothers, the early talkie days[edit]

Stars of Warner Brothers, the early talkie days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An unreferenced article which does not specify clear inclusion criteria, so is inherently impossible to define. The list of people included is arbitrary original research. Prod was removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for having too specific a set of criteria per WP:SALAT. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Minds[edit]

Creative Minds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Elementary/middle schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, and per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools, elementary and kindergarten schools are typically merged. redirected, or deleted. No obvious target for merger or redirect. Edison (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2011 (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.

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 - withdrawn by nominator. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berwick Grammar School[edit]

Berwick Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

grammar schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator is clearly ignorant of what constitutes a grammar school in different parts of the worls or what Wikipdeia's tradition is with school articles. Our normal procedure is to delete/redirect articles on primary schools, but this is clearly an article about a school which provides secondary education. Keep. Emeraude (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw -- as, though this is not at all indicated in the article itself, this grammar school contains not only a middle school (note: my understanding all schools that are only as high as the middle school level are treated as indicated above), but also a senior school.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2011 (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.

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 Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center[edit]

Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools. I'm not finding non-trivial RS coverage for this school. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools 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) 08:31, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:31, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Lawrence Jr. K-8 Center[edit]

David Lawrence Jr. K-8 Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools. The school has some RS coverage but not enough to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Gene93k. - Dwayne wuz here! ♫ 15:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools 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) 08:31, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:31, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 List of Baltimore City public schools#Middle schools. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calverton Elementary/Middle School (Baltimore, Maryland)[edit]

Calverton Elementary/Middle School (Baltimore, Maryland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Elementary/middle schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The best redirect target appears to be List of Baltimore City public schools#Middle schools. The school gets some RS coverage. I'm undecided whether it is substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. No significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 23:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Baltimore City public schools#Middle schools 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) 08:33, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:33, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 no consensus to delete. Work out the details on what is and is not a secondary or high school, then have this discussion if necessary. There seems to be significant confusion on that point. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross Grammar School[edit]

Albatross Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be a non-notable grammar school, and per wp standards a redirect (after delete of this content) in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a K-10 school. Secondary and high schools are usually kept per editor consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Gene. I had understood that while we usually keep high schools per editor consensus, that is not the case with middle schools/junior high schools and other schools that are junior to high schools. Can you perhaps point me to the consensus that middle schools/junior high schools are kept, that you refer to? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a high school. No reason why it doesn't meet WP:GNG.TerriersFan (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This school does not appear to include grades 11 and 12.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 10th grade (age 16) is the cusp for a high school since that is the level when a school leaving certificate is awarded. TerriersFan (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy to change my position if I can see where there is the consensus that schools up to grade 10 are treated the same as those that are higher level. If I can find or be shown that the unreferenced claim in the article that it does in fact go up to grade 10 can be sourced to an RS -- I see that two editors now have indicated that that is the case, but I can't find rs support for it myself in the article or on google, though it is likely my search is not as capable as that of others. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per TeririersFan. In most countries, the legal school leaving age is around 16, or a rough equivalent of US grade 10. This would include collèges in the French education system, for example, where junior high and senior high (lycée) are completely separate institutions, and secondary or comprehensive schools in the UK where sixth form colleges are also often separate. In developing countries, grades 11/12 are often only available to students within reach of large schools in big cities. What we don't generally include in these criteria are 'middle' schools where students are required to continue to the third tier before they are allowed to leave. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It does not educate beyond grade 10, so is more of a middle school, than a high school, thus failing to gain the blanket assumption of notability typically granted high schools. No sources have been presented to show it satisfies WP:N or WP:ORG, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT not a directory of every organization, business, or school which has ever existed. It is unreasonable to claim that if in some country people leave school after 10th grade) or 8th grade, or 5th grade) that that education pattern automatically makes their highest level of schooling notable for all such schools. Each such lesser school should be held strictly to satisfaction of WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard. Sources to satisfy it can usually be found with moderate effort for high schools, which get coverage in newspapers over a wider area. Edison (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What country's Ministry of Education classifies its school-leaver-age secondary schools as 'more of a middle school'? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep doesn't make sense to hold not united states schools to u.s. standards. Bouket (talk) 19:22, 2 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.

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 delete as failing WP:GNG. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMA 1: The Reckoning[edit]

MMA 1: The Reckoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable mixed martial arts event. No significant coverage or lasting historical significance. Primary results reporting. References are not from independent sources. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "non-notable mma event" - content covers the first EVER mixed martial arts event in Ontario, Canada, just weeks prior to the giant event in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Also, Josh Burkman, Jordan Mein and Chris Horodecki are notable fighters in the MMA world. "lasting historical significance" - see previous point. "references are not from independent sources" - apologies, did not know that was necessary, - http://www.mmamania.com/2011/4/3/2088193/mma-the-reckoning-results-from-the-casino-rama-in-ontario, http://topmmanews.com/2011/04/02/mma-the-reckoning-quick-results/, http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma/2011/04/02/the_reckoning_fight_card/ , and so on. Will update the document accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stynn (talk • contribs)
• Delete Of the three sources provided by the article creator only one has more than simple match results. Being the first event in a particular province is not necessarily notable, IMO, but could help if there were other aspects that might make the event notable. Having notable fighters on the card does not make the event notable as per WP:NOTINHERITED. I can find no significant coverage of the event therefore it fails WP:GNG and the article fails WP:ROUTINE. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article's sources are either not independent or routine sports coverage. I agree with TreyGeek's comments. Jakejr (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The scale of the event does not appear notable (national or international), and the article itself appears to be routine news coverage. Janggeom (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is historically significant for Ontario (population of over 13 million), and MMA fans, since the UFC has called Toronto the "Fight capital of the world" (http://www.mmafighting.com/2011/10/12/dana-white-calls-toronto-the-ufcs-fight-capital-of-the-world/). Since the fight to get MMA in Ontario was a long one, compared to Vancouver, Montreal, and other major venues in Canada, this event is nationally significant, just as the first MMA event in New York state will be, once MMA is sanctioned there. What is the purpose of deleting this information? If someone wants to find out what the first ever MMA event is in Ontario, why make that harder for them by removing it from Wikipedia? Would we also be removing the fight itself from Burkman's page? Deleting fights, and re-writing history is hardly what Wikipedia is about. The results (verified by several different sources) clearly confirm the event took place, which is the most important part of the article - the date, place, and fighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stynn (talk • contribs) 19:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Though I still think keeping this page separate is the most user-friendly and accessible means of data organization for this historic information (as it allows people to see exactly who faught on the event, and how they won, etc), if the information police deem it unworthy for its own page, someone should update this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Martial_Arts_in_Ontario) to include a significant amount of information from this event. Otherwise, the "Mixed Martial Arts in Ontario" article implies that the event in Toronto was the first, which is historically inaccurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stynn (talk • contribs)

• Further Debate Regarding WP:GNG - after a small update to the article, to simplify this debate, can we mutually establish where criteria is not being met here?

"Significant coverage" - topic is covered in many articles, ranging from several general sports updates, to a detailed breakdown of the challenges and changes of putting on an MMA show in Ontario compared to other places. I, personally, am not sure what else should be added to the basic article to fulfill this criteria. As such, I think we are still debating whether this has been met satisfactorily, correct?

"Reliable" - Several major and independent articles provided, ranging from mainstream (TSN and Sportsnet) to independent MMA sites. Not sure if this was a point of debate.

"Sources" - was once a point. Are we still hoping to collect a greater variety of articles on this event to meet this criteria?

"Independent of the subject" - Creator of article made an error here in using a promoter (and host venue) of the event as sources. Should be removed. Other sources are independent of the subject itself (though they focus on Canadian sports).

"Presumed" - I don't believe there is any controversy regarding this point, but correct me if I am wrong. Stynn (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Stynn, when debating an article for deletion, you should only type your vote to keep or delete once. AfDs involve more than counting votes, but limiting each person to one vote makes it easier to follow who is participating in the debate. You should also sign your posts by typing three tildes (~) at the end. I have removed duplicate votes and added your signature where it was still missing. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first event in Ontario makes this interesting, but not inherently notable. This event featured only a handful of notable fighters and the page, as it currently exists, primarily reports match results, which are just routine sports information. Information about this event could certainly be added to Mixed Martial Arts in Ontario; the event itself, though, does not warrant its own page. Otherwise, we would have a page for the "first" sporting event of every kind in every country, state, and province. There does not appear to be significant independent coverage that establishes the notability of this event - just a handful of reports that the event happened and the results. There are a few articles I found in the London Free Press, but little information outside of Ontario to establish more than local significance. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Osubuckeyeguy I was using the "keep" thing more to signify "what" i was arguing, moreso than as a vote itself. Didn't realize it was a signifier of a vote.

RE: "Otherwise, we would have a page for the "first" sporting event of every kind in every country, state, and province." - Why is that a problem? I would think people living in a state would be interested in the information about the whens, wheres, whys and whos regarding their first MMA event. Especially somewhere like Ontario and New York, where citizens have been trying to get MMA sanctioned for years. But generally speaking, even in smaller places, isn't that what an encyclopedia is for? Mass-information? The only reason I made this page in the first place was because multiple sources (wikipedia included) were claiming UFC 129 was the first MMA event in Ontario, which was simply incorrect. There was no major, central resource for finding information about this event. And as an MMA researcher, radio host, and columnist, I find wikipedia is an excellent starting point for this type of miscellaneous information, and excluding significant firsts seems somewhat counter-productive to maintaining and cataloguing historical firsts. Regardless of who is or was on it, I would find it valuable to have a page with detailed information on the first MMA event in Brazil, California, New York, etc, and I am sure many others would too. These are key changes for the growth of MMA, and since MMA is still developing, it's basically a history that we are writing now, on Wikipedia. This is why I think it's important to catalogue it correctly, and not just give it a semi-mention on some partially unrelated page. Stynn (talk)

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.

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Littleton Pre-School[edit]

Littleton Pre-School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Preschool. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. No notability stated and what little material there is could be recreated in a few mins if necessary. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2011 (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) 10:25, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 merge to International Khiladi. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Khilaadi[edit]

International Khilaadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Existing article. There is already an article on this subject. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with International Khiladi. There seems to be material missing from the older article. However, it seems both articles are at least partial copy+pastes of IMDB . Pit-yacker (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge, clearly the same. Just go ahead and merge the articles. AfD is the wrong process for this. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:22, 2 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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Edward Richardson Community Primary School[edit]

The Edward Richardson Community Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The fact the school is possibly built on an ancient landfill site might lend notability if this fact can be substantiated as notable by a reliable source (beyond a class 2 project from 14 years ago). If the article is kept, a good deal of the rest is noise and needs stripping down. Wikipedia isn't free web-space and some of the material is better at home on an official website. Some of it probably doesn't even belong on the schools website never mind here. For example, does anyone need to know there are 7 car parking spaces for staff? Pit-yacker (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its notable by virtue of its coverage in independent reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 21:23, 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 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless any notability of the school can be shown. Some of the content is clearly very close to being promotional, leaving the possible archeology as the notability - which, it strikes me, isn't about the school at all and so would be better dealt with in Tetford. Show that it's notable rather than that it exists and I'll think about it again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tetford#Education per standard procedure and where it is already mentioned in depth. 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) 08:40, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:40, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:26, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rishab's Number[edit]

Rishab's Number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The creator contested the prod with "This number is entirely my work and no one has come up with it before me so there is no way of having a third party source. This number is useful for chemistry students who want to save time. I have given all sources from where i got the equations. [emphasis added]". Non notable. →Στc. 21:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Original Research. Also non-notable. If this number hasn't been invented before (under another name) then there should be publications about it in Journals, etc. So why aren't there any? If it has been invented before, then this "rediscovery" by a school-boy is non-notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is closely related to the einstein. BTW, the numeric value should be 0.119627 (using J and mol instead of KJ and nmol).  --Lambiam 19:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously, but... I'm on an iPad so can't do this myself, but can somenone give a gentle explanation on author's talk about OR etc.? I'm disdainful of OR egotism by adults, but need we crush the spirit out of this youngster utterly and completely? EEng (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eppstein has given a link to a guideline that is clear enough. There is also WP:NOR. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. I assume that the author was simply unaware of our policies. We aren't a publisher of original thought (WP:NOR) or for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleves School, Weybridge[edit]

Cleves School, Weybridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable. As far as I can tell, "Outstanding" is one of four Ofsted grades for schools - approx 10 - 20% of schools fall into this grade. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is a matter of sources not status. It is our policy that " there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and so the number 17,000 has no significance here. Warden (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is certainly notable per the WP:GNG, being documented in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Indeed, the 17,000 number is irrelevant IF all 17,000 subjects are notable for some reason in their own right. The consensus in the past has been that primary schools are not inherently notable. That means that for the article to stay, there must a claim made as to why this school is notable. This article makes no claim as to why this primary school is, in terms of notability, any different to any one of the 17,000 other primary schools in the UK (alone - never mind the rest of the world).

Your reliable source is from Ofsted. Ofsted, is a statutory authority charged with inspecting standards at every school in England from nursery upwards. There will be one of these documents for every single establishment. The conclusion of your argument is thus that, every single school in England is automatically notable because Ofsted inspects it. In reality, the inspection report you reference does little more than a) confirm this school exists b) in this particular case, tells us its performance - as assessed at its last 3-yearly inspection - is above average.

If you can find a reason that this school is truly notable, I'll strike my delete. For example, does the school have any historical significance? Is the school building even listed? - Although there are almost 400,000 Grade II listed buildings, I would consider this a different matter as listing is an expert recognition of a building's significance compared to other buildings. Compare that with an Ofsted inspection report which is a statutory document produced by virtue of the mere existence of a school. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all such English schools are notable because they will all have such detailed reports created by an independent, reliable authority. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of notability. Per the relevant guideline, this does not require fame or importance. What the word notability means here is just that the topic has been noticed — that some independent, professional authors have taken the trouble to write about the topic. The reason for this is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this word means that we cover the full circle of knowledge. We are not the Guinness Book of Records, only looking for superlatives. We are not Ripley's Believe It or Not! looking only for novelties and the bizarre. We aim to be to the "sum of the world's knowledge" and that means all noted topics not just an arbitrary fraction. Warden (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your test for notability is that "some independent, professional authors have taken the trouble to write about the topic." But that's not the test here at WP, because routine, matter-of-course coverage which every entity of a certain type gets no matter what, doesn't count. I suggest you modify your test to read: "some independent, professional authors -- who are not required to write about the particular topic as a matter of course -- have chosen to take the trouble to write about the topic, in preference to the many other topics they might have chosen but did not." EEng (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are quite mistaken. If all entities of a certain type tend to have detailed sources then we will cover them all, not just a selected few. We therefore cover all elected politicians, all professional athletes, all human settlements, all chemicals, all species, all mathematical theorems, all battles, all universities, &c. As we certainly cover some schools, we should therefore cover all schools for which sources can be found. Like this one. Warden (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, do you just make things up hoping people will believe them? You've been here plenty long enough to know that's not true. Give it up. You're making yourself look silly, you're wasting others' time, and you're not doing this school any favors by prolonging the discussion of just how unremarkable it really is. EEng (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. "All mathematical theorems" -- really? Wow -- that's a lot of articles! Why, I hardly know how to begin enumerating them![reply]

Actually you are incorrect. For example, I have seen quite a number of articles for elected local councillors being deleted as non-notable. Politicians with articles are generally viewed as being notable because they have regular and non-trivial coverage in multiple sources, not because they have a birth certificate and appear in the census. I dare say the same applies to all the other topics you identify. For example, a mathematical theorem (or theory of any kind) becomes notable because it is mentioned in peer reviewed publications. Believe me, there is an absolute wasteland of discarded and/or discredited research in the literature that does not have or deserve an article. There is even more that didn't get as far as publication. Pit-yacker (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A typical planning application generates many many more pages of reports. In this case a planning officer has "noticed" a planning application and has written a detailed report about the application and why (or why not) the development should be allowed to proceed. Generally speaking, these are also publicly available. By your logic these should be taken as meeting WP:GNG for the subject of the application. That means that we should have articles for every supermarket built in at least the last 30 years (Even better we can have an article on my local branch of ASDA opening 24hrs - because that required another application (and series of reports) to remove the original condition limiting it hours to 7am-9pm . Pit-yacker (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to whose logic you're referring. My intent was to exclude routine reports and so on as significant coverage, trying to explain that in terms of Warden's idea. Looks like I left too many loopholes. EEng (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Warden Pit-yacker (talk) 14:25, 27 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 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your links are to essays, not policies. We prefer policy-based argument here as essays just represent personal opinions, not a general consensus. Warden (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's no claim being made to notability. Yes, it exists, so it's a building. But there's nothing which would be sufficient to pass the GNG that I see at present. Show something beyond an Ofsted report - something that actually makes it notable - and I'll think about it some more. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability cannot be established with a report which is automatically generated by the mere existence of the institution. Anyone familiar with the English education system understands what Oftsed reports are. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Weybridge#Education where it is already mentioned, per standard procedure. Primary schools have no inherent notability and an Osfsted report merely confirms their existence through 3-yearly routine inspections with : 'This school has classrooms, pupils, and teachers, and it should strive to do better at...' However, non notable schools are generally neither kept nor 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) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Kudpung's suggestion is fine by me. Precedent is a useful guide Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chennestone Primary School[edit]

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

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is notable per the WP:GNG because it is covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 21:25, 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 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it lacks the level of coverage I'd look for to meet the GNG. At present it doesn't even claim notability beyond existence. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sunbury-on-Thames#Education where it is already mentioned, 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) 08:49, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:49, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forest View Primary School[edit]

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

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable per our guideline as it is covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 21:27, 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 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there's no substantial claim to notability and it lacks the level of significant coverage that I'm looking for in this type of article. Show that and I'll look again at my point of view. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cinderford#Education in Cinderford where it is already mentioned, 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) 08:52, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:52, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:26, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Kings Junior School[edit]

Charlton Kings Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Junior school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As above. Run-of-the-mill; no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Neutrality^talk 23:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• *Keep: The topic is notable per our official notability guideline (WP:GNG) as it is covered in detail in independent reliable sources like [www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/957387/urn/115736.pdf]. TDW ✉ 01:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleves School, Weybridge. These sources are statutory inspection reports. Every single school in England has one of these as a product of three yearly government inspections of schools. Thus if notability of this school is determined by the existence of the above inspection report, the conclusion of this is that every single other school in England must also be automatically be notable. The existence of publicly available documentation generated at various levels of government related to a subject automatically granting notability is plain absurd. Virtually every major building project in the UK generates many more pages of planning documentation. Most of this is now publicly available online. Does that mean we have sufficient notability to start articles for every branch of Tesco built in the last 30 years?

• The government sector accounts for nearly half the UK economy. If we eliminated the government activity on such grounds that it is mundane then this would leave a correspondingly large hole in our coverage of the country. But we are an encyclopedia and so are expected to cover everything; not just pop records and footballers. Warden (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say government reports are mundane. There is nothing wrong with using a routine government report as a reference, in an article where notability is already established. However,I can't see that a routine (generated by virtue of the subjects mere existence) government report can be used to establish such notability. As I have said, the logical conclusion of your position is that virtually every supermarket built in the UK is also notable by virtue of the fact that the planning process generated a number of hefty planning reports. Pit-yacker (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A planning document isn't such a good source because, by its nature, it will predate construction and so won't have much to say about the life and history of the place once it is up and running. Anyway, List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom seems to have lots of red links so there's work to do there too. So many topics, so little time... Warden (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, the content of the report isn't much use here either. It does little more than confirm the existence of the school and perhaps at a stretch tells us that the school's performance is pretty average. Pit-yacker (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense. The report covers the essential activities and facts about the school - this is its point and purpose. If you're not interested in the school and its performance then this will naturally seem rather dry. But in that case, you should move on to a topic which does interest you; not try to destroy this one because it bores you. Warden (talk)

• Keep The school is notable, per the sources identified by TDW. Note that there is some scope for merger with Charlton Kings Infants' School — I have the impression that they were combined previously. Warden (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there's no claim to notability beyond existence being made that would satisfy the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While an inspection report is fine as a reference it does not establish notability. There are 16,000+ maintained Primary schools in England and Wales. Every one of them has an inspection report. To claim that a such a school is notable because it has been inspected is therefore the same as saying that it's notable because it exists.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest incubation as a last resort (Alternatives to deletion). I am sure that this school is more notable than you think. The school naturally harbors soon-to-be pupils of the high-ranking Balcarras School.TDW ✉ 00:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Charlton Kings#Schools where it is already mentioned, 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) 08:55, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:55, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Kings Infants' School[edit]

Charlton Kings Infants' School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable per our official notability guideline (WP:GNG) as it is covered in detail in independent reliable sources like this. Warden (talk) 21:29, 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 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If more reference is made to Warden's file. TDW ✉ 01:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there's not the level of sourcing required to meet the GNG in my opinion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but convert to a REDIRECT to Charlton Kings#Schools 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) 08:58, 30 December 2011 (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) 08:58, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:28, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 Kuala Lumpur as the article fails the primary notability guideline of having "significant coverage in secondary sources". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SJKC Jalan Davidson[edit]

SJKC Jalan Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 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) 09:00, 30 December 2011 (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) 09:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, which page is the locality? Interesting note at 2009 in Malaysia#June. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:29, 1 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.

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 Petaling Jaya. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Sri Petaling[edit]

Sekolah Sri Petaling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Petaling Jaya, 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) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (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) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete Redirect. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Changed to 'redirect' per discussion: See talk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Christopher's International Primary School[edit]

St. Christopher's International Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Penang 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) 09:03, 30 December 2011 (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) 09:03, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete Redirect. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Result changed per discussion. See talk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Telok Kurau Primary School[edit]

Telok Kurau Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bedok 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) 09:04, 30 December 2011 (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) 09:04, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 Papar, Malaysia. Hut 8.5 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SK Kuala Papar[edit]

SK Kuala Papar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable primary school; no demonstrated significant coverage from reliable, independent third-party sources. Neutrality^talk 23:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Papar 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) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (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) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topcliffe Primary School[edit]

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

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG being covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Our editing policy is not to delete such notable topics. Warden (talk) 21:31, 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." Neutrality^talk 23:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article would require significantly more sourcing to claim notability sufficient to meet the GNG. The content that is vaguely notable is already covered at Castle Vale - I'd argue that that's sufficient coverage (it's more about the tower block redevelopment anyway than it is the school) and that an article about the school is simply duplication. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Castle Vale 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) 09:07, 30 December 2011 (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) 09:07, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:29, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryders Green Primary School[edit]

Ryders Green Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think West Bromwich Albion's notability is contagious enough to infect this school. Even then, unfortunately, it is difficult to assess whether a lot of the claims made are real or odd one-offs with a bit of added peacockery. The referenced pages that are still live suggest 2 former pupils are (or were) members of WBA's under 11 and under 13 squads respectively in 2008. The other suggests that one team member came to the school once in 2007. A bit of quick digging suggests that Ormiston Education Trust is actually some sort of consultancy related to setting up Academies. More digging suggests that the "ECM Charter Mark" has at the very least fallen out of favour since the change of government. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG, being the subject of multiple independent and reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect if appropriate). 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. Notability is also not inherited from former pupils. Neutrality^talk 00:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see the connections with WBA as anything more than a tenuous link to be honest, which leaves nothing to claim notability at GNG level with. If those links with the football club can be shown to be notable beyond that which can normally be assumed for a football club then I might reconsider. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to West Bromwich#Education 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) 09:09, 30 December 2011 (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) 09:09, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:29, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reaside Junior School[edit]

Reaside Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Junior school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG being covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Our editing policy is not to delete such notable topics. Warden (talk) 21:33, 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 23:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's non-notable and doesn't have the level of sourcing which would make it notable per the GNG imo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but REDIRECT to its locality at New Frankley 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) 09:16, 30 December 2011 (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) 09:16, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:30, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 The Troll Hunter. --MuZemike 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Hunter (2014 film)[edit]

Troll Hunter (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Film has not entered production and has not had significant coverage. It is WP:TOOSOON for an article. BOVINEBOY2008 20:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film hasn't entered production but it is still being made. It's not doing any harm there being an article on it, I keep checking up news for it and whenever I will see something new I will add it in. It can just patiently wait until there is more information. Or if there is a way (is there a way?) that the article won't be able to be seen by the public and the only people who can see it is people who have a registered account? We could just make it dormant (if we can)? --Charlr6 (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Way too soon. Work hasn't started on the film yet and it may never get made.--Michig (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Troll Hunter where it is already covered. It is too early to split this off into a separate article. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see this being useful as a redirect. Anyone searching for it will go straight to Troll hunter and we don't know the year when it will be released and neither do our readers.--Michig (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirecting will keep people from going "oh, a redlink" and recreating it. And I've also read that redirects take less server space than deletion does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as proposed by RJHall. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway we can make it dormant though? Or at least save until a later date and open it up when more information is released?--Charlr6 (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be moved to userspace (e.g. to User:Charlr6/Troll Hunter (2014 film)) for you to continue working on it or it could be incubated to allow wider input, but for the latter we would need to have a reasonable chance of it growing enough to return to mainspace within a few months. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind looking after it and adding in more information as it comes. Is everyone happy with that? When everyone is happy I'll copy over the information from the page onto my userspace and create the link that Michig gave. --Charlr6 (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the User:Charlr6/Troll Hunter (2014 film) page. So the main page can be deleted now and until further important information is out I'll just edit the page myself on the page until its worthy to be making a proper page out of. --Charlr6 (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• don't think it makes sense for you to have it in your userspace. if it's a main article then other people would not know where to find it, if they have something to add. not sure what else to do.Bouket (talk) 19:24, 2 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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert School[edit]

Prince Albert School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Primary schools aren't inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in the UK). Article fails to state why this school in particular is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable, per WP:GNG, being covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. It is our editing policy to retain such notable topics. Warden (talk) 21:35, 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 being named after a famous personage doesn't make it notable and I really don't see anything else that does. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but REDIRECT to Aston#Education 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) 09:17, 30 December 2011 (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) 09:17, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:31, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abbotsbury Primary School[edit]

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

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Primary Schools aren't considered to be inherently notable. There are around 17,000 primary schools in the UK. Article fails to state why this school is any more notable than any of these. In fact, there is nothing in the article which couldn't be re-created in a couple of mins. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:GNG, notability requires independent, reliable sources and this topic has them, e.g. this substantial report. 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) 21:47, 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 23:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's really not notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Notability cannot be established by a report which is the automatic result of the institutions existence.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but REDIRECT to Morden 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) 09:19, 30 December 2011 (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) 09:19, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:32, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Rankin Junior School[edit]

John Rankin Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As with other noms there are almost 17,000 primary schools in the UK. Article fails to state why this one is notable. Although, a large number of playing fields have been sold off over the last 15 or so years, it isn't unusual for a primary school to have a large playing field. So that for example cant be taken as notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 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 The topic is notable, per WP:GNG, being covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. It is our editing policy to retain such notable topics. Warden (talk) 21:37, 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 there's no suspicion that it might be notable, let alone sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but REDIRECT to Newbury, Berkshire#Education 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) 09:20, 30 December 2011 (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) 09:20, 30 December 2011 (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) 10:33, 30 December 2011 (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.

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 Speedy Deletion by Fastily under G8. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unriddle and Unriddle 2[edit]

Unriddle and Unriddle 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unriddle Charcters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)