Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyde Park Junior 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 Keep, taking into account the rather clear consensus of those who assessed the revised version and its sources. Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hyde Park Junior School

Hyde Park Junior School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Prod was contested on the grounds that the creator intends to improve the article. Problem is, when the concern is notability (as it was), the article could be a masterpiece and still be up for deletion. This article is about a primary school whose main claim to notability is that it was built on the site of a house owned by a famous explorer. Still, Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources; only source is official website, and a search for additional sources turned up nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per addition of sources, seems to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Meets none of the notability criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (schools). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe you meant "proposed notability criteria". There are now, at any rate, multiple independent sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This non notable school lacks reliable sources. --Stormbay (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete For the reasons above. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete For lack of sources. Undeath (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - utterly non-notable.--—TreasuryTag talkcontribs 07:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete relatively non-notable junior school. If it became significant in any way it could become notable. SMC (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Plymouth # Education #Schools... Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: This article now has reliable independent sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sources is plural but there is only one new source given.(westernpress) Undeath (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Three different news stories. I used all three. Two more given for further reading. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A school which is over 100 years old with an interesting history, and notable also for being the location of Sir Francis Drake's former home. The original school was huge by UK standards with 1548 pupils. A few online sources have already been added. There will be plentiful sources in the local Devon libraries. Dahliarose (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - historic school backed up by independent references that meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per nom. Yes, per nom. I agreed with everything he said except the recommendation to delete. So "What he said", but keep. Also per the multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, and per the improvements that have been made to the article during this debate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As the article currently stands, ample reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The school is well know in Plymouth and information about it is important to the history of the local area. Aforalice (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The school has accumulated plenty of press coverage during its 100 year history to show its notability. The sources presently cited are only a selection of the easily-found online (and therefore recent) ones.  —SMALLJIM  23:40, 6 March 2008 (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.