Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Victoria 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. Note that schools at this moment appears to be a rather contentious issue, please consider discussing at relevant pages (e.g. WP:SCHOOL) before considering future school-related deletion. - Mailer Diablo 13:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Victoria Primary School

Delete not notable and SOMEBODY had to get alex to read his messages! Charlesknight 23:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — Joshua Johaneman 01:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Elementary/primary schools are not notable except in very rare circumstances, and this article makes no effort to show otherwise. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the appropriate school district, local authority, or town unless article is expanded. Yamaguchi先生 04:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, version being revised currently meets the WP:SCHOOLS guideline as proposed. Yamaguchi先生 18:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete primary school with NN. Not even a source or school district listed. Arbusto 05:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - even if it were the oldest building "in use" in Sedgely it would not be notable. No other assertion of notability. JASpencer 07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons explained at User:Silensor/Schools. This article now meets the proposed WP:SCHOOL guideline as well as I am in the process of rewriting it, please feel free to assist me in the process should you be interested. Silensor 07:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete primary school with NN, and none asserted. I do not agree with User:Silensor/Schools. Ohconfucius 13:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor. Also, verifiability (rather than notability) is the standard. --Myles Long 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Ohconfucius (Pally01 19:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC))
• 'keep please it is notable to the surrounding community and meets proposed guidelines too Yuckfoo 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep going to agree with SilensorTrey 21:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a 109 year old building used continuously as a village schoolhouse is certainly notable enough for our purposes. --Dystopos 04:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bog-standard Brummie primary school. Catchpole 07:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Per nom. All schools have OFSTED reports. That is not in any way shape or form a non-trivial 3rd party source. So even by WP:SCHOOLS this would fail. JoshuaZ 22:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Note that if it were better sourced, I would favor merging or maybe even keeping (due to age of the school). JoshuaZ 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more non notable primary schools than you can shake a stick at. Please, someone, show me a notable one. Dont wave proposed guidelines at me, nor Ofsted reports. Just show me a real notable one. Which this just is not. What it is is indiscriminate information and fails WP:NOT Fiddle Faddle 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Once again, notability is subjective and is not a primary criterion for Wikipedia articles. Ignoring that for a moment, it would also be astonishing to argue that a century-old school and village landmark is less notable than, say, a single episode of Will & Grace. But here we are again taking up arms against the real world just because its underrepresented on Google. Let me repeat the very first heading under the official policy WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Is there any doubt that a great deal could be written from verifiable sources on a primary school in operation since 1897? Certainly more than could ever be said about Ellen Feiss or Loituma Girl. The consensus relative to "Wikipedia is not an Indiscriminate collection of information" refers to TYPES of articles (FAQs, Travel Guides, Memorials, Instructions, Plot summaries) and does not address notability, for which there exists ONLY the proposed guideline for use as reference. --Dystopos 22:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, independently sourced and NPOV. Meets content policies. I'll check back to see if anyone brings up a good reason to delete, although based on past experience that's pretty unlikely. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn school; the mere fact that it's sourced and NPOV would allow inclusion of the telephone directory. Carlossuarez46 20:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth, age of school suggests notability per proposed WP:SCHOOL guidelines. Bahn Mi 22:16, 26 September 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.