Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverside Public 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 Delete and redirect to Thames Valley District School Board. For detailed rationale, see talk page JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riverside Public School

Riverside Public School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Delete nn primary school Mayalld (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please not another school Afd... We need to have a better consensus regarding schools because there are many editors that have it in their mind that all schools are notable and another set where some are and some aren't. As I know it, the some are and some aren't have been the prominent view point... so I ask that those who are feeling all schools are notable, please consider the true notability of this article. --Pmedema (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment, expanding on the comment. It may be useful for editors to read Wikipedia:Notability (schools) before expressing an opinion. To summarize, there is no current consensus on broad notability guidelines for schools, so each has to be considered on its own merits. WP:N is the guideline to follow here. --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. GJ (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to the school district Thames Valley District School Board. RMHED (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep We should be adding more school articles to Wikipedia not DELETING THEM I think you should give this project an extra 4-6 weeks until the school knows about it, by then the article will be bigger!!! Mofeed.sawan (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Although I see the need to add more information to make this article worthy of being on Wikipedia, I do see value in giving our younger audience some more time to get this article up-to-standard. I think three to four weeks is reasonable giving that its Christmas holidays and kids are busy with other (none school related) activities! After all, what’s four weeks if we can get elementary schools excited about our great repository of knowledge - Wikipedia?Wayne.Rashid (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — Wayne.Rashid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge to either Thames Valley District School Board or List of schools in London, Ontario. Insufficient secondary sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Thames Valley District School Board. The far bigger problem is the knee jerk deletionism, usually evidenced by a perfunctory "per nom" as an excuse for deletion, without any evidence that the article has been read, let alone its notability meaningfully considered. As with most primary schools, there are few secondary sources available, and this article exemplifies that. If additional sources become available, the article can be changed from a redirect to a a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I can't see how you can Merge Riverside to the School board, also Why do you have to delete the article? 21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect Delete and redirect to school district page. Primary schools should not have their own pages. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete then Redirect As written, this school fails even the generous proto-policy for school notability. The absence here of the usual editors who find sources and improve the article suggests that they tried and failed to do so. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Question: Could someone please explain the delete then redirect suggestion. What is the point of that? I would only think that would only be necessary for a copyvio or BLP-violation. "Merge" I understand, "redirect" I could understand, "delete" seems unnecessary but vote is understandable, but "delete and redirect"? An honest request for enlightenment, please. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Typically, children who edit their own school's articles will undo a redirect. Deleting the article makes this harder, and allows for a Speedy Deletion tag under G4. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Typically, children are the ones vandalizing school articles. Why not turn all school articles into redirects and avoid the problem. I have to agree that delete and redirect is counterproductive. Alansohn (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • They can vandalize a redirect. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Then let's delete all articles that children might vandalize. That'll show them, those darn whippersnappers! Alansohn (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I guess I'm thinking about my belief that one district page will have more eyes on it than many individual pages. I also think that people are not remembering that Wikipedia's search engine will usually lead people to an article even if there is no redirect. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I understand the motivation now but strongly disagree with the suggestion. It's even easier to revert than it is to nom CSD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable elementary school. -Djsasso (talk) 01:21, 5 January 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.