Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milking Bank Primary School

Milking Bank Primary School

Delete not notable Charlesknight 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Joshua Johaneman 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Colleges are generally notable. High schools and middle schools are an open question. Primary schools and preschools, though, generally must demonstrate some seriously unique characteristics to be considered notable. This one doesn't - the only information I see in the article is demographics, the logo, and a reference to an OfSTED report describing the school as "above average", which doesn't strike me as unusual praise. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a verifiable and well written article, no reason under policy has been presented for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary school with NN. Arbusto 05:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless you plan on deleting EVERY "non notable" school entry, which would mean, what, leave Eton College only.

Comment Behind every notable person, there is a [potentially] notable school. Ohconfucius 13:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.GeorgeLouis 06:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reaons explained at User:Silensor/Schools, this is a perfectly good article and no valid reason for deletion has been provided (as already noted). Silensor 07:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And referring as usual to my rebuttal essay User:JoshuaZ/Schools. JoshuaZ 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. No valid reason for deletion has been provided. bbx 08:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with some regret, because the article itself is a decent article, but the school is non notable (per Zetawoof). There are are enormous numbers of primary schools. My wife teaches at the second largest one in the UK, but it has no article - deservedly so (not?), because its only claim to notability would be size. We seem to have to have the "It's a school keep it at any cost" lobby here. That lobby needs to get a grip on reality. WP:NOT a directory or an indiscriminate load of general stuff. It's an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Show me notability, not existence. Fiddle Faddle 08:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fiddle Faddle. Yawn! Or delete all the content and link to OFSTED report. Ohconfucius 13:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yamaguchi; verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 18:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is verifiable and meets guideline proposal too Yuckfoo 21:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest - what does it matter that it meets proposed guidelines? Doesn't Wikipedia is not a crystalball apply to wikipedia as much as anything we add to it? --Charlesknight 21:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it matters very much we are trying to hash out guidelines for schools if you disagree join that discussion crystal ball does not apply to proposed guidelines only articles with speculations Yuckfoo 04:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But by saying "it meets proposed guidelines", you are effectively saying that the guidelines are fixed and settled - so how could a) you be hashing them out or b) I join in the discussion? If you are still discussing them, you are actually saying that they match THIS version of the proposed guidelines. Unless you have a crystal ball how do you know they know the FINAL version that will go forward? --Charlesknight 06:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The subject of the article meets existing criteria for Wikipedia content. The substance of the article could be cleaned up. Merging with either the school district or the housing estate would be an acceptable alternative to deletion. --Dystopos 05:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per other Brummie schools. Article reads like Ofstedcruft. Catchpole 07:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this school, like ALL schools is notable. Allow for organic growth and expansion, and stop wasting everyone's time with AFDs on schools, some of Wikipedia's most precious articles. --ForbiddenWord 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Most precious articles"? Are you seriously claiming that this article is somehow more important than a typical FA, for example? Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I'm saying is that school articles are basically the most valuable kind of articles on the project. --ForbiddenWord 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - an ex-teacher asks - why? --Charlesknight 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC) --Charlesknight 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The husband of a primary school teacher asks why, too. Every school is not sacred. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - And someone considering becoming a school teacher also asks why and notes that the claim that "all schools are notable" is a premise which no one but die hard school inclusionists favor and that not even WP:SCHOOL agrees there. (Oh and standard note that allowing for organic growth is simply a set of buzzwords not an argument) JoshuaZ 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Catchpole, Zetawoof and others. OFSTED does not constitute non-trivial coverage by a 3rd party (since all schools have it. It isn't any different than keeping a corporation because the corporation filed a tax-return) so it fails even the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. JoshuaZ 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you accept as non-trivial coverage? A couple of articles in the local newspaper... a picture/feature from the Times Educational Supplement...? Would that meet the arbitrary criterion you just set for notability? Yes. Would this fundamentally change the "notability" of the school? No. But then I'm sure you would find some other "reason" to justify the instinctive delete reaction. In addition to the other, stronger arguments, deleting school pages is likely to disillusion those (new) editors who contribute to them -- editors who may have been inclined to contribute badly needed brain power to substantive Wikipedia articles, rather than procedural squabbles and the laying down of un(der)defined rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.212.155 (talk)
  - If any editor is discouraged from creating articles which do not meet Wikipedia guidelines that is an excellent thing. A page on a school is no different from a page on any other topic. It must meet and demonstrate that it meets established guidelines. Please be aware that the phrasing in your message is highly personalised with italics and quotation marks. Such pointed messages have in the past been judged to cross the threshold of civility. Fiddle Faddle 07:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I refer you to the previous comment: "...procedural squabbles and the laying down of un(der)defined rules." If such time and passion were put into writing good quality articles on core subjects, rather than debating school pages that are at worst harmless, Wikipedia would be a hell of a lot better, I'm sure we can agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.212.155 (talk)
      - Please sign your entries using ~~~~, which translates automatically. Wikipedia improves because people create and edit good articles and because people nominate non compliant articles for deletion. Each of those is positive editing. This article, though well enough written, is about an entirely non notable primary school. Thus it is nominated for deletion. It is now subject to formal community review and a consensus will be reached. An article that is trivial is not harmless. By existing it causes the harm of dilution of articles that qualify to be here by pap. WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. If you want to change that there are other places to debate it. This place is the discussion over this article and its deletion. Fiddle Faddle 07:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, an article should meet all WP guidelines for content. The way a wiki works is that people can come along and make improvements over time. When you're talking about deletion, you're proposing to curtail that process. The issue for AfD is not the content, but the justifiability of having an article on the given topic at all. In an encyclopedia where consensus has established the value of articles on individual video-game characters, single episodes of TV sitcoms, and various internet memes that have achieved note through a month or two of blogging, I find it difficult to imagine that an actual real verifiable school with decades of history would ever be considered to be below that threshold. WP is NOT a paper encyclopedia and there is no question that articles on schools can meet every official policy. --Dystopos 12:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth, this is a well written article which meets the proposed WP:SCHOOL guidelines. Bahn Mi 22:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]