Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneyrea 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 Moneyreagh. Consensus is that this subject is not an appropriate one for a full article. History will be left intact as several editors have expressed interest in a merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyrea Primary School[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable with only primary sources as references. No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not actually listed buildings, the earlier buildings do appear on the Northern Ireland Historic Buildings Database[1][2]. I think there's sufficient info there for the school to meet WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Moneyrea. The subject title here is Monyrea Primary School which was formed in 1961 according to the school's prospectus. Primary schools do not generally qualify for separate Wikipedia articles. The exception put forward by Necrothesp is based on the buildings extant for Moneyrea National School, located along the road, from which the current school relocated and was renamed in 1961.

If an article is justified it should be under the title Moneyrea National School and concentrate on the buildings architectural merit. Whether the old school buildings are notable enough for a Wikipedia article is debatable as both sources highlighted by Necrothesp state in the evaluation and comment sections that the buildings are not listed architecturally or historically, but do have local interest.

I haven't found anything further to suggest the notability requirements are satisfied. Therefore, unless additional sources are put forward to support notability, my interpretation is that neither WP:N, WP:ORG nor WP:GEOFEAT is satisfied for a separate article and both the current school and the historic buildings can be adequately covered in the Moneyrea village article as suggested in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Rupples (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Completely fails GNG, ORG. Sources are primary and BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The keep vote is nonsense, if something which might have been located in the same spot is possibly notable write that article, notability is not inherited from buildings that used to be in about the same spot. // Timothy :: talk 07:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not "nonsense". It's the same school. It has just moved up the road and changed its name slightly. The two historic buildings are still there. The history of the school is noted in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Nonsense. Orgs are not notable because of locations they formerly occupied. // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  <sigh> I'm afraid you're completely missing the point. It's not an organisation. It's a school that is a direct descendant of the schools that occupied nearby historic buildings. I'm not arguing that the school itself is notable. I'm arguing that the buildings are notable. And it is perfectly normal on Wikipedia to have an article on an institution which includes details of historic buildings occupied by the predecessors of that institution on or near the current site. Even if the current institution is not particularly notable, its buildings may be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge given the fact that the school itself doesn't seem to be notable. Having articles on primary schools in general is uncommon unless they've received exceptional coverage, which this one hasn't. Fails GNG and ORG as explained above. An anonymous username, not my real name 14:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 23 March 2023 (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.