Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darfield Upperwood Primary School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darfield Upperwood Primary School

Darfield Upperwood Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

small non-notable primary (US=elementary) school, financial scandal in and of itself does not make the school notable Chris 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete School is not notable. Scandal is ho hum for the world we live in. YechielMan 03:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I created this article because this is a Beacon School, the highest UK status, it has two significant aspects of the academic work have been rated as 'Outstanding' by the independent inspectors, a notable feature in itself, and the school meets WP:N by both having a feature on it in the national press and being mentioned in the British House of Commons. This is a significant scandal that is still running and people reading about it may well come to WP for information on the school. Having background information to newsworthy events is an excellent way to attract new readers. TerriersFan 03:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment While I think this school is just about notable, I would be careful about claiming notability on the basis of Beacon School status, as this programme was scrapped two years ago; this means that the status is no longer being renewed for each school & so a school that had Beacon School status in the past may no longer warrant it. EliminatorJR Talk 23:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. With two independent sources, it appears to meet the primary notability criterion. A Traintalk 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Appears to be notable enough. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- TerriersFan 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article meets notability (beacon school, media/parliament coverage etc) and contains several references. LordHarris 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
note the comment above by EliminatorJR-Beacon School status was scrapped two years ago. no longer a criteria for notability. Chris 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • When the school became a beacon school it obtained notability. Whatever happens next does not detract from that. People and places don't go in and out of notability or we would delete articles on sportspeople when they retire, sports stadia when they close down etc. This school fully meets WP:N for the Hansard reference, media mentions etc never mind beacon school. TerriersFan 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, yes and no - while notability is generally permanent, schools can be an exception to that. For instance, a school might have some of the most outstanding examination results in the country (and therefore good secondary sources) in one year, yet five years later for one reason or another their results may just be average. Does that make them notable? It's a similar thing with Beacon status. EliminatorJR Talk 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I see no reason why the bar should be set higher for schools than for other pages. If we accepted that notability was not permanent then we should be in a difficult, arbitrary situation. A school gets an article because it has the best results in the country, next year the results are poor - does it lose its article or perhaps it needs 2,3 or 4 poor years? If it then has a good year is the article recreated? The secondary sources remain extant even if its performance drops off so, in my view, the only practical way forward is for the article to be kept. TerriersFan 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I probably phrased that badly. I was using the exam analogy to refer to the fact that because Beacon status has lapsed, it may be difficult to prove schools notable any more purely because of that status. It was probably a bad analogy though :) I'm not trying to prove this particular school NN though - I think it has some notability. EliminatorJR Talk 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've modified that article a bit to bring in Specialist Schools, which are closely linked. EliminatorJR Talk 17:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are more than enough reliable sources provided within the article which demonstrate that this Beacon School is notable enough for inclusion. RFerreira 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep External links show the school easily meets notability. Noroton 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep media coverage of the scandal certainly makes the school notable.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alkivar, et al. --Myles Long 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the commenters above, beacon schools such as this one are indeed notable. Yamaguchi先生 01:19, 17 April 2007 (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.