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 Schools in Croydon. Rarely must an article be deleted just because someone reverted an edit to it. -Splash - tk 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Following the herd, I originally only redirected this non-notable school for 7 and 11 year olds to its local government. Somebody reverted my redirection, so I have no choice but to request your indulgence for the deletion of this page. SolidPlaid 00:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems perfectly valid to me; I can't see what the issue is. — iridescent 00:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is that there is nothing notable about this school. The two sources on the page are listings for reviews of conditions of all the schools in England. SolidPlaid 01:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete per nom. A Non-notable school, fails WP:N. TJ Spyke 02:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, schools nearly always fail notability. digitalemotion 02:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an ofsted report does not a notable school make Ohconfucius 03:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is there a reason that you can't just re-revert the page back to a redirect, rather than deleting it? --Goobergunch|? 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per DGG, as nobody's provided a reason. Deletion should be a last resort, and a redirect is fine here. --Goobergunch|? 23:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, no evidence of notability.  RGTraynor  08:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: These school entries annoy me. Why shouldn't we have entries on every starbucks or wal mart? Anyway, non notable, original research, etc etc... all the usual suspects. Epthorn 15:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The original decision to redirect was the right treatment, and this afd should formalize it. There is not enough specific information for a separate article on this primary school. DGG (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, sure, but what if there was a redirect for every school in the world? Then there would have to be a bunch of disambiguation pages to sort them out. Wikipedia's internal search engine will find these schools on their list pages anyway, so I would like the page just plain deleted. SolidPlaid 06:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Schools in Croydon - School does not seem notable for its own entry, so a re-direct is perfectly reasonable. Again they are no big deal, and very few re-directs need to turn into disambiguation pages so I do not see that as a problem. Camaron1 | Chris 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Schools in Croydon - For all the reasons above. Pafcool2 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect to Schools in Croydon - gee, just do it! I have added the photo to that article. TerriersFan 22:04, 9 November 2007 (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.