Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loughbrickland Primary School

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 Loughbrickland. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loughbrickland Primary School

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

NN defunct primary school that provided education for children ages 3-11. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Loughbrickland per nom and SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Nothing here worth keeping. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AFD that all but the most exceptionally noteworthy primary schools are assumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus as documented at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Davey2010 says Nothing here worth keeping, and I agree, but he would still redirect it. --Bejnar (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: - There's nothing of value in the article hence redirect would be a better option .... Redirect isn't a Merge you know ... Also voting Delete just because of my comment alone is rather silly too! –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have voted "delete" on primary schools for a long time. --Bejnar (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is the accepted way to go for such pages and has been demonstrated by the 100s of primary schools in the 'R from school' cat over many years. Although individual, poorly subscribed AfDs might occasionally close as 'delete', IMO attempts to change that well founded precedent through the back-door of ~~AfC~~ AfD would be a lot of hard work and would not be appropriate. RfC would be the solution, but that's been tried many, many times... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large issue. From what I've seen at 100s of such AfDs, the clearest consensus that has been demonstrated is that the stand-alone article should not stand. There appears to be a split between those who favor delete (some of whom question the value of a link to an article that imparts near-zero information about the school; they often hold sway at even well-subscribed AfDs) and those who favor redirect (some of whom point to our leaning to save something out of the ashes). As to consensus, consensus can change ... and if we are basing our view of consensus on what the common outcome is at AfDs, it strikes me that perhaps AfDs may be a logical place to look for the answer as to what current consensus is. Epeefleche (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure if Kundpung was replying to me ? ... If so - I've already voted Redirect, and it seems Consensus is to Redirect which is absolutely fine with me :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2014 (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.