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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oakbank Primary School (edit | 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)

Unusual one this. This was set as a redirect back in 2012 as non-notable, which is certainly appears to be. Obviously A7 doesn't apply to schools else it could have gone then.

The redirect was then raised as a speedy this week, which I had to decline as it's clearly not a recent redirect. I've rolled back to the article's substantial content so that a discussion can be had here on notability. A quick search by me couldn't find anything about this school outside of directory listing and the like. GedUK  11:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non-notable and unreferenced (which isn't a surprise, given the lack of information online about it). Seasider53 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non-notable and unreferenced. Just as it was in 2012. This is a wholly unremarkable primary school. John (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently non-notable. Insufficient referencing to establish notability. Coldupnorth (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Primary schools are rarely notable enough to merit an article of their own, and I do not see any evidence that this case is an exception at the moment. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2022 (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.