Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapal primary school

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lapal primary school

A primary school is never notable just by reason of existing, nor even by being verifiable. It must be notable of itself and that notability must be asserted in the article. Every school is not sacred. UK primary schools are ten a penny. This article is linked to by no real article, and has no real content. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no sources referenced. Note that Oftsed, if cited later as a source, has little relevance, because every UK state sector school has an Ofsted reference. I prodded it. Ironic was the statement when deprodding deprod obviously notable school, since the article has this simple line in it: Lapal Primary School is a primary school which situated in Halesowen, West Midlands, England. That is it. There is no notability. The school just exists. Period. Fiddle Faddle 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This school, like all schools, is notable. Current policy is to keep all notable schools. Allow for organic growth and expansion. --ForbiddenWord 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are so many problems with the above I don't know where to begin. I see at least three issues. First the matter of a questionable premise - the repeated assertion that all schools are notable even though most people don't think that. Two the irrelevant tautology- obviously everyone agrees that verifiable sourced notable schools should be kept but to claim that is a policy is simply wrong (in fact, if something were agreed to be notable but not meet WP:V it would be removed. WP:V overides pretty much everything). Third, this once again has the usual buzzwords about organic growth which I have yet to see a defintion. What does this mean? How is organic adding anything to the phrase, and how is this somehow relevant? JoshuaZ 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article does not meet criteria at WP:Schools Catchpole 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not all schools are notable, and primary schools in particular are hard to establish as noteworthy since they lack the signficant extracurriculars of higher institutions. —dustmite 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As the nom points out, there's really no information here at all. Unlike colleges and (to some degree) high schools, primary schools have a rather significant hurdle of notability which they must meet before an article really makes sense, as there is generally very little variation in curriculum and teaching style. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Punkmorten 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The nom says it all. -- Kicking222 09:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Halesowen — The same information is on the Halesowen page, and a redirect is cheap. — RJH (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The school not only exists, it is ranked in the 98th percentile in Science according to a 2004 study by BBC News. The criteria proposed by WP:SCHOOLS have now been met, three independent sources have been cited. Silensor 02:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Two of those sources are trivial - one Ofsted report and one demographic directory style listing from DFES. My delete vote stands. Catchpole 10:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Any claim that the Ofsted report is trivial cannot be based upon actually having read it. It is 16 pages long, and contains a lot of detail, ranging from local historians visiting classes to parents' dissatisfaction with notices of closure. For comparison, this is what a trivial published work actually looks like. It contains a name, address, and 1 sentence of description. It's a directory entry. The triviality restriction in the PNC is aimed directly at excluding such directory entries, raising the notability bar such that it must be shown that there is more than a simple directory entry's worth of source material available. Uncle G 22:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Ofted is trivial. Look at how the triviality condition is used for WP:CORP to understand what trivial means. It excludes things which are standard or expected for something in that category. If trivial meant what you thought it meant, almost any corporation would have an article and many humans (including me) would fit WP:BIO who very obviously don't. JoshuaZ 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 02:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until Notability becomes policy... which it ISNT... our standard will be verifiability which IS policy. The school verifiably exists, and should be kept. Silensor also makes some very good points.  ALKIVAR™ 04:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and significant. Piccadilly 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Assertions are not arguments.
• Weak delete By and large not notable but he science percentile may be a plausible argument for keeping. JoshuaZ 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. For all of the past reasons. It is not written anywhere that all schools are notable. Vegaswikian 05:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, most schools are notable, atleast to local people, as is this, 300 pupils is enough. bbx 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G, this article complies with proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 22:16, 29 September 2006

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.