Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syracuse Elementary

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 Syracuse, Utah. -Scottywong | talk _ 17:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse Elementary

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is for an unimportant elementary school and has not been edited since July. It is opinionated and looks unorganized. There are no references. From what I know, this has had a Speedy Deletion nomination soon after it was created but was kept because of the rules on schools not being speedy deleted. Thebirdlover (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Syracuse, Utah per standard practice for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move & Disambiguate- Move to Syracuse Elementary School and disambiguate; I've identified four schools with the name and an East S~, all with only routine coverage. See Talk:Syracuse Elementary. Dru of Id (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Carrite ZachFoutre (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Birmingham Blue Coat is a bad example. Virtually all elementary schools are non-notable. I see no reason to preserve the edit history when creating an disambiguation page; and frankly no need to create said disambiguation page in the first place p b p 12:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge to the locality as we usually do. The quality of the article is unimportant, as only the basic information is normally merged in these cases. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any one locality to merge to p b p 00:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:00, 14 May 2012 (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.