Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cotwall End 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cotwall End Primary School

Non notable primary school Pally01 11:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oy, here we go. Delete per nom. Inclusionists can't even use the stupid "But the school's been around for a long time!" defense here. -- Kicking222 13:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, does not meet criteria at WP:Schools. Catchpole 14:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks in part to Uncle G digging up some sources, it does now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 00:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is both non-notable and doesn't even have non-trivial coverage from multiple sources (OFSTED is not non-trivial coverage since all schools have it). JoshuaZ 19:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The context that the word "trivial" is used in WP:SCHOOL implies that the word is being used to mean "of little value or worth" (i.e. in creating an encyclopedia article). While almost all UK schools currently open have OFSTED report, that doesn't make the reports any less valuable or worthy in terms of creating encyclopedia articles. JYolkowski // talk 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That reading doesn't make any sense in that context. That would imply that all schools would automatically get articles from those reports and other governmental reports. That can't be what is intended by that attempted guideline because it would make the rest of the guideline superfluous. Furthermore, note that generic government reports are not considered non-trivial for purposes of WP:CORP which uses the same phrasing. A much more sensible interpretation therefore is that trivial in this context means something closer to "commonplace" or "ordinary" possibly with some reference to the mathematical meaning of the word. JoshuaZ 23:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The point of the guidelines is to ensure that subjects have enough verifiable information to sustain an article, so the definition of "of little value or worth" makes more sense here. JYolkowski // talk 23:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You seem to be under the misimpression that the guideline is an attempt to limit the number of school articles; on the contrary, it assumes that every school that can support an article can have one, supposing someone will write it. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Presuming this to be the case: why don't we a) apply these standards to corporations or b) re-word it or add a note to make it clear that the standard here is not the same standard as for WP:CORP even though they use exactly the same wording? c) stop claiming that the current WP:SCHOOL criterion is some sort of compromise? If it is just what the die-hard school inclusionists want we should be open about it. JoshuaZ 20:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
          • We do apply these same standards to corporations. It is, however, not the case that all corporations have generic government reports written about them. (It's not the case for all schools, either.) There's no 33-page detailed report on Conflict Computer Limited (AfD discussion), for example. Your argument, being entirely based upon that false premise, is wholly ill-founded. Uncle G 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • See User:Uncle G/On notability#The_primary_notability_criterion. Uncle G 17:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Expanded after the AfD template was slapped to its forehead like a dunce cap on a recalcitrant eleve, this article is now well on its way to setting a standard for primary school coverage. Good show! --JJay 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep worthwhile article, which is in full compliance with Wikipedia policy, particularly verifiability. No proper reason given for deletion. --Rob 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets all content policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Arbusto 02:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and significant. Piccadilly 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Please go duke this out over at WP:SCHOOLS first. RFerreira 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a worthwhile article that meets proposed WP:SCHOOLS criteria. Yamaguchi先生 23:40, 29 September 2006
• Delete. For all of the past reasons. Keep in mind that WP:SCHOOLS may not achieve consensus. Vegaswikian 00:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep non-notability is not a valid deletion criteria as notability is not a policy. VERIFIABILITY is policy, notability is not.  ALKIVAR™ 03:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, not much different than any other school article we have on WP. Just because it is a primary school is of course not a reason to delete it. bbx 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep please this school is notable and now there is seven referneces there Yuckfoo 06:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable school, and has verifiable content. Notable primary schools should have a place on Wikipedia which definitely meets WP:SCH criteria. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 07:33, 1 October 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.