Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripple Infants 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 speedy deleted as a copyright violation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ripple Infants School

Vanity article, asserts long and colorful history, but not importance of subject. If this were a US school, it would have been speedied, I think. Delete SarekOfVulcan 05:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • See Wikipedia:Schools for more details.--SarekOfVulcan 05:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't know what an "Infant School" is, but just by reading the article it doesn't seem to be notable. TJ Spyke 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete With the possible exception of its age, I see nothing notable, just a load of trivia. --Dgies 05:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Judging by the pictures of the kids on the school's website, this is a kindergarten school. High Schools are bad enough, thanks. Resolute 05:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Catchpole 07:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep We feel this entry should be kept. The history section provides a unique insight into the 90 yr old history a school - the first type of school, in terms of it's architecture, in the country. It also provides a good refernce point for those people wishing to research about teaching with technologies and who reuire information about 'up to date' ICT within schools. Links are made with a famous UK Footballer too. The entry is quite comparable to many other school's entries. The text also demonstrates high quality original research, which local study museums will find of interest. The fact that the school is a 'kindergarten' school makes it even more worthy for inclusion - schools educating smaller children have just as much status as those catering for older students. For these reasons the entry is very worthy and credible and not any different from entries from other schools.Rippleinfants
  • The text also demonstrates high quality original research — I strongly suggest reading our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is not the place to publish documentation for the previously undocumented. If you want to make an argument for keeping this article, cite sources to demonstrate that the subject satisfies the WP:SCHOOL criteria. If you had written your article based upon sources, rather than upon original research, this would be a simple matter, because you would already have the sources to hand. Uncle G 12:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It falls under WP:COI --Lijnema 12:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to be particularly notable in anyway. There seems to be a lot of trivia too. --SunStar Net 12:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We give a lot of leeway for high schools as far as notability is concerned, but the same need not apply to kindergartens! Instead of sitting on the floor at home eating play-doh, the kids sit at a tiny desk and eat paste. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. Pretty much the entire article is lifted from its website [1], so a WP:CSD A8 candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 2 November 2006 (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.