- 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. This close is without prejudice to further use of this title as a disambiguation page, which was raised after the final relist but not discussed extensively. signed, Rosguill talk 02:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Fairfield Preparatory School
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Fairfield Preparatory School ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added two references to this previously unreferenced article. It has been tagged as needing more citations since 2018. The citations I have found only verify the fact of the school's existence and that the building is listed, so I don't think this meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Tacyarg ( talk) 13:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Education, Schools, and England. Tacyarg ( talk) 13:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Adding that I have also nominated the article about the collective the school is part of, Loughborough Schools Foundation, for deletion. Tacyarg ( talk) 13:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. The building is listed. If necessary, the article can be repurposed and retitled to Fairfield House, Loughborough, although it is actually listed by Historic England as Fairfield Preparatory School. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)- Comment. Yes, I noted the listed status, which is why I added it to the list of Architecture AfDs - but I think I must be reading
WP:GEOFEAT differently to you. I see that "Artificial geographical features ... [with] any other protected status on a national level" are notable, so if the building is an "Artificial geographical feature" it is notable, despite being at Grade II. But I read the following bullet point, "Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", as meaning that buildings are not "Artificial geographical features" as discussed in the first bullet point, and that listing does not make them automatically notable. We could consider a Merge to
Loughborough to retain the information about the building?
Tacyarg (
talk)
10:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. The second bullet point means they may be notable even if not covered by the first. Listed buildings have always been considered to be notable. We do not merge a single building to a largish town. That would be silly. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Now established that the listed building is not the same school. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes, I noted the listed status, which is why I added it to the list of Architecture AfDs - but I think I must be reading
WP:GEOFEAT differently to you. I see that "Artificial geographical features ... [with] any other protected status on a national level" are notable, so if the building is an "Artificial geographical feature" it is notable, despite being at Grade II. But I read the following bullet point, "Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", as meaning that buildings are not "Artificial geographical features" as discussed in the first bullet point, and that listing does not make them automatically notable. We could consider a Merge to
Loughborough to retain the information about the building?
Tacyarg (
talk)
10:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as 57 bytes of cited material does not an article make. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
12:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Perfectly sufficient if it meets
WP:GEOFEAT. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're saying that—even though currently the only sourced material in the article are the listing grade, headmaster's name, ages, enrollment numbers, and student capacity—the article meets the guideline at
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)? However, that page says,
Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable.
— Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)- You seem to have
missed this reference. You also seem to have ignored the fact that the current state of the article is not what's in question at AfD, but the notability of the topic. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, I saw the citation to
Historic England; it is (a) only used to cite the school's historical listing, and (b) furthermore containing not but simple statistical information. The current state of the article is currently demonstrating its failure to meet both
Wikipedia:Notability and
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
12:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe you
didn't click within the link to get the further information? And I reiterate, the "current state of the article" is utterly irrelevant to the notability of the topic, which is what is addressed at AfD. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I did, actually; as I said,
furthermore containing not but simple statistical information.
Since I'm assuming good faith on the part of Tacyarg, the current state of the article represents the extent of the subject's notability; if there're more sources by which to meet the requirements of the aforementioned notability guidelines, then they should be added to the article—or at least proffered here for vetting. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)- I have no idea what you mean by "furthermore containing not but simple statistical information". That is not just statistical information. Once again, this is not how AfD works. Wikipedia is a work in progress. You cannot just assume that "the current state of the article represents the extent of the subject's notability". And it already meets a Wikipedia notability standard. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I did, actually; as I said,
- Maybe you
didn't click within the link to get the further information? And I reiterate, the "current state of the article" is utterly irrelevant to the notability of the topic, which is what is addressed at AfD. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, I saw the citation to
Historic England; it is (a) only used to cite the school's historical listing, and (b) furthermore containing not but simple statistical information. The current state of the article is currently demonstrating its failure to meet both
Wikipedia:Notability and
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
12:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to have
missed this reference. You also seem to have ignored the fact that the current state of the article is not what's in question at AfD, but the notability of the topic. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're saying that—even though currently the only sourced material in the article are the listing grade, headmaster's name, ages, enrollment numbers, and student capacity—the article meets the guideline at
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)? However, that page says,
- Perfectly sufficient if it meets
WP:GEOFEAT. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in the article are two database records with no information about the subject. // Timothy :: talk 21:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 08:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
-
Loughborough Schools Foundation could be added to
Loughborough#Education. This can then be made into a disambiguation page - there's nothing to merge as no sources are cited. The listed building would probably be enough to keep the article, but it's another Fairfield Preparatory School, in Suffolk; the school there closed in 1996.(
https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/124871)
Peter James (
talk)
13:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- You are correct. This is a different school. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:38, 31 May 2023 (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.
- 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. This close is without prejudice to further use of this title as a disambiguation page, which was raised after the final relist but not discussed extensively. signed, Rosguill talk 02:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Fairfield Preparatory School
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Fairfield Preparatory School ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added two references to this previously unreferenced article. It has been tagged as needing more citations since 2018. The citations I have found only verify the fact of the school's existence and that the building is listed, so I don't think this meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Tacyarg ( talk) 13:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Education, Schools, and England. Tacyarg ( talk) 13:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Adding that I have also nominated the article about the collective the school is part of, Loughborough Schools Foundation, for deletion. Tacyarg ( talk) 13:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. The building is listed. If necessary, the article can be repurposed and retitled to Fairfield House, Loughborough, although it is actually listed by Historic England as Fairfield Preparatory School. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)- Comment. Yes, I noted the listed status, which is why I added it to the list of Architecture AfDs - but I think I must be reading
WP:GEOFEAT differently to you. I see that "Artificial geographical features ... [with] any other protected status on a national level" are notable, so if the building is an "Artificial geographical feature" it is notable, despite being at Grade II. But I read the following bullet point, "Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", as meaning that buildings are not "Artificial geographical features" as discussed in the first bullet point, and that listing does not make them automatically notable. We could consider a Merge to
Loughborough to retain the information about the building?
Tacyarg (
talk)
10:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. The second bullet point means they may be notable even if not covered by the first. Listed buildings have always been considered to be notable. We do not merge a single building to a largish town. That would be silly. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Now established that the listed building is not the same school. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes, I noted the listed status, which is why I added it to the list of Architecture AfDs - but I think I must be reading
WP:GEOFEAT differently to you. I see that "Artificial geographical features ... [with] any other protected status on a national level" are notable, so if the building is an "Artificial geographical feature" it is notable, despite being at Grade II. But I read the following bullet point, "Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", as meaning that buildings are not "Artificial geographical features" as discussed in the first bullet point, and that listing does not make them automatically notable. We could consider a Merge to
Loughborough to retain the information about the building?
Tacyarg (
talk)
10:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as 57 bytes of cited material does not an article make. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
12:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Perfectly sufficient if it meets
WP:GEOFEAT. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're saying that—even though currently the only sourced material in the article are the listing grade, headmaster's name, ages, enrollment numbers, and student capacity—the article meets the guideline at
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)? However, that page says,
Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable.
— Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)- You seem to have
missed this reference. You also seem to have ignored the fact that the current state of the article is not what's in question at AfD, but the notability of the topic. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, I saw the citation to
Historic England; it is (a) only used to cite the school's historical listing, and (b) furthermore containing not but simple statistical information. The current state of the article is currently demonstrating its failure to meet both
Wikipedia:Notability and
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
12:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe you
didn't click within the link to get the further information? And I reiterate, the "current state of the article" is utterly irrelevant to the notability of the topic, which is what is addressed at AfD. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I did, actually; as I said,
furthermore containing not but simple statistical information.
Since I'm assuming good faith on the part of Tacyarg, the current state of the article represents the extent of the subject's notability; if there're more sources by which to meet the requirements of the aforementioned notability guidelines, then they should be added to the article—or at least proffered here for vetting. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)- I have no idea what you mean by "furthermore containing not but simple statistical information". That is not just statistical information. Once again, this is not how AfD works. Wikipedia is a work in progress. You cannot just assume that "the current state of the article represents the extent of the subject's notability". And it already meets a Wikipedia notability standard. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I did, actually; as I said,
- Maybe you
didn't click within the link to get the further information? And I reiterate, the "current state of the article" is utterly irrelevant to the notability of the topic, which is what is addressed at AfD. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, I saw the citation to
Historic England; it is (a) only used to cite the school's historical listing, and (b) furthermore containing not but simple statistical information. The current state of the article is currently demonstrating its failure to meet both
Wikipedia:Notability and
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
12:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to have
missed this reference. You also seem to have ignored the fact that the current state of the article is not what's in question at AfD, but the notability of the topic. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're saying that—even though currently the only sourced material in the article are the listing grade, headmaster's name, ages, enrollment numbers, and student capacity—the article meets the guideline at
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)? However, that page says,
- Perfectly sufficient if it meets
WP:GEOFEAT. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in the article are two database records with no information about the subject. // Timothy :: talk 21:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 08:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
-
Loughborough Schools Foundation could be added to
Loughborough#Education. This can then be made into a disambiguation page - there's nothing to merge as no sources are cited. The listed building would probably be enough to keep the article, but it's another Fairfield Preparatory School, in Suffolk; the school there closed in 1996.(
https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/124871)
Peter James (
talk)
13:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- You are correct. This is a different school. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:38, 31 May 2023 (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.