Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curriehill Primary School (2nd nomination)

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. W.marsh 19:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curriehill Primary School

Curriehill Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A primary school without assertion of notability. The first AfD in 2006 was closed as "keep", but it seems to me that none of the "keep" arguments given there are valid by today's guidelines. The article has not expanded since.

I also nominate the following article about a closely related school:

• Currie Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as wholly unreferenced without any evidence of notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I normally (in fact, only have, to date) only support secondary or further education school/college articles, which usually either have sufficient information to sustain an article, or are capable of expansion. Primary schools and the like have much less of a chance to progress in such a manner (as evident by lack of expansion in more than a 12 month period), thus unless they hold even mildly referenced or even verifiable information, particularly with an article at this state and size, simply should not, and cannot, be left as stands. This article in my eyes is no exception to this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per THOR. TJ Spyke 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both per Thor. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect both to Currie to where the content has already been merged. Deletion is not an option because of GFDL considerations. TerriersFan 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. Why wouldn't deletion be an option? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Once content has been merged, the edit history must be preserved in an auditable form to meet our WP:GFDL licensing requirements. TerriersFan 02:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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.