Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane End Primary School (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SheepLinterBot (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 18 February 2023 (→[[Lane End Primary School]]: [t. 1] fix font tags linter errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Delete. The argument put forth by the nominator regarding the subject's notability, as per WP:N standards, was cogent and solid, and the article's supporters were not able to successfully pick it apart (let alone tear it down). If this article passed WP:ORG and WP:RS standards -- even marginally -- we would not be having this debate. As it stands, the current article needs to be removed. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lane End Primary School

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lane End Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Generally, primary schools are not considered notable, and I don't see why this should be the exception. Its only "notable" feature is the fact it apparently received Grade 1 from Ofsted. This does not make it notable or special or anything. Other than the usual league tables and data you'd get for every school in the country, there is little to suggest this school is worth having an article. See also the discussion here. Majorly talk 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are "unsatisfactory" schools notable? They're set apart from most other primary schools too. There's no guideline that states being "outstanding" automatically satisfies WP:N, and in fact I'd say that it's no more important in the context of general notability guidelines than any of the other ratings (ie: "good","satisfactory", or "unsatisfactory"). All four are covered by Ofsted reports, not just the "outstanding" schools, so since they all have an equal amount of coverage they should all be equally notable/non-notable when just using the Ofsted reports for notability (which is what this article does). The "outstanding" schools (and the "unsatisfactory" ones for that matter) usually get more media coverage than the average schools, but in this case it seems limited to a lone story about a visiting MP. I'm not convinced the school meets notability criteria, but could be swayed. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this "Ofsted assessment" argument is absurd, because schools are assessed every year or so. What was "outstanding" last year may well be in need of special care this year. Is the argument that every school that has ever been assessed as outstanding by Ofsted is notable, regardless of its present assessment? If so, then as Nev1 says, those that have been assessed as being in urgent need of outside help are equally notable, arguably even more notable. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my above reply to TerriersFan. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though most primary schools would simply be redirected to the local district, this school is noted. The Grade 1 Ofsted assessment is the highest rating possible in the UK and its score and "turnaround" was noted in reliable sources and a visit from the MP. The article is V, NPOV, and NOR, and therefore meets Wikipedia content criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleBlue (talk • contribs) 03:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the sake of clarity, is your argument that any primary school that has ever had an Ofsted rating of "outstanding" is notable, regardless of its current rating? --Malleus Fatuorum 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update to a Weak keep. The "turnaround" article turned out not to be about this school leaving no direct significant online news coverage about the school. Nonetheless, the article is V, NPOV, and without OR. I see no reason for it to be deleted. I wouldn't have written an article about it but I wouldn't seek out its deletion either; importance is not a content criterion. At the very worst, it could be redirected to an article like List of schools in Stockport or Cheadle Hulme so that the article history is not lost should more reliable sources surface for a more complete article. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. The article is verifiable, neutral and received sufficient coverage in secondary sources to meet inclusion criteria. Keith D (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiability and neutrality do not translate into notability. Every school has an Ofsted report, and every school appears in the various league tables. Does that make them all notable? Which specific secondary sources, other than the local MP's web site, have reported on this school sufficient to make it notable, in your view? --Malleus Fatuorum 12:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We do not declare entire subject categories as inherantly non-notable. While it is true that most primary schools do not attract enough attention to receive significant non-trivial coverage in independent secondary sources, those which do should be considered notable. This school has been identified as among the best of the best of primary schools by OFSTED, and we have always used that as a barometer for determining which primary schools should have an article. This is like Blue Ribbon schools in the US. The repeated attempts to delete this article are a disruption and should end after this article is kept this third time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we declare entire subject categories as notable? Please assume good faith, this isn't an attack on all primary schools but a discussion of whether this one is notable enough to warrant an article. Reasonable arguments have been presented to delete the article and to keep, but tradition (ie: "we have always used that as a barometer for determining which primary schools should have an article") isn't one of them. Nev1 (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do, in fact, declare entire subject categories as notable. Heads of State, inhabited geographical locations, Pulitzer prize winners, et cetera. But I was not suggesting that the subject of this article was in such a category. And no bad faith assumption was made; the nomination starts with "primary schools are not considered notable", for me to respond to this statement is no assumption of bad faith. This particular school has received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources that we have ample encyclopedic material from which to base an article, and it has established notability by being NATIONALLY recognized as among the best schools in the UK. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the nomination starts with "generally, primary schools are not considered notable" (own emphasis added), admitting that there are exceptions to the general rule so responding to the statement was unnecessary unless you believe that as a general rule all primary schools are notable. To respond with "repeated attempts to delete this article are a disruption" is either misunderstanding the nominating statement or an assumption of bad faith. The only coverage the school has received is from an MP's website, which hardly constitutes a third party reliable source. The other sources used league tables and local history books to reference what the area was like before the school and the opening date of the school, which hardly proves notability. Local history books document what is notable locally, rather than nationally, otherwise they would be very thin. Nev1 (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So much confusion all in one statement... There are no general rules of certain subject categories being non-notable. We only have general rules of certain subject categories being notable (which is done for convenience and efficiency), and the rest are individually considered. There is, therefore, nearly no value to comparing the subject of an article to others in its category. It is an argument frequently made at AFD, and it is always rejected. The other confusion is that notability does not apply to what content an article may have... it is just a determinaton as to which subjects we will have an article about. Once we decide to have an article on a subject (meaning we have determined it is notable,) the content of the article does not have to pass notability to be added. It just has to be encyclopedic, NPOV, and verifiable. Local sources are usually the best place to get detailed information on a subject, due to the very reason you mentioned: the coverage is more in-depth, and usually preceeds the subject having attained fame or recognition. We can not screen out information from local sources under the misguided concept that the sources have to pass notability. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The confusion is all your side Jerry. An Ofsted rating of "outstanding" is nothing special, and it comes and goes with each inspection. I really do believe that American editors have failed to understand what an Ofsted rating actually means, and are confusing it with their own Blue Ribbon School awards. Which is like comparing chalk with cheese. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My statement was in reply to the one directly above it, and has nothing to do with Ofsted or Blue Ribbon. Please re-read the statement above mine and then mine and see if you at least agree with what I am saying about no general rules on non-notability, and on not using notability rules to screen article content or sources. I'll be shocked if you don't agree, because these concepts come directly from well-established policies. Obviously, we still disagree on the OFSTED issue, and being an American, I can only base my opinion on the thousands of AFD's I have read over the years... my experience has been that the argument of OFSTED grade 1 equates to notability has sucessfully been made routinely in the past. Thanks. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... my experience has been that the argument of OFSTED grade 1 equates to notability has sucessfully been made routinely in the past." Then you are basing your opinion on the mistaken opinions of others. We are assessing this article for notability, not any of those other articles you have some vague recollection of. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be careful to not approach the making of personal attacks. My recollection of AFD's I have participated in, read and studied, and/ or closed or reconsidered at DRV in the past is by no means "vague". And I was not comparing the subjects of those other articles to that of this one, but rather the precedent of the community's past acceptance of OFSTED G1 status as conferring notability to the school. That you disagree is clear, and I accept that, but please do not smear me or my reputation for rational argumentation at AFD; it is wholly unwarranted and not at all acceptable. I will not be participating any further in this AFD, to allow the focus to go back to the article and not the participants. I will accept the decision by the community as determined by the closing administrator. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jerry, but you've not understood what I said. All that could be gleaned from local history book is the opening date of the school, the other information from the local history book didn't just "preceed the subject having attained fame or recognition" but pre-dated the creation of the school. I was not talking about a fixed rule that primary schools are notable, but the general notion that most are not. Does "While it is true that most primary schools do not attract enough attention to receive significant non-trivial coverage in independent secondary sources, those which do should be considered notable" sound familiar? As for
So to bring us back from this tangent on general notability etc which you seem to be getting confused by, is this school notable? It all hinges on one good Ofsted report. A distinction shared by 19% of primary schools in England (see Yugosithlord's comment below), and which could change at the next inspection. Would the school still be notable then? Notability is not temporary, so the answer should be no, but the argument that a school is notable for once having a very good report is rather weak. Nev1 (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the book says about the school is the "newly built school was named after the hamlet of Lane End" or words to that effect. The book was published in December 1967, so I assume it was opened that year. Majorly talk 15:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I might find that position more persuasive if you could draw attention to what these reliable secondary sources are saying about this rather ordinary primary school (around 20% of primary schools are assessed as "outstanding" at any given time, and the rating could very easily change at the next inspection). That in one Ofsted inpection it was as ranked "outstanding" hardly seems to be worthy of particular note. Of local interest certainly, but national interest? I hardly think so. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You say "at any given time"; in 2006 only 11% of the over 6400 schools inspected received a grade of outstanding, in 2007 14%. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • And next year there will be a different set of "outstanding" schools, and the year after a different set again. The logical conclusion to your argument is therefore that in a few years time every primary school will have its own article, because it was for a brief period ranked by Ofsted as "outstanding". --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, based on your argument, that the population of the outstanding schools group is different every year, such that every school would be covered in a few years time, then if a school managed to be in the outstanding category for 4 years in a row, it would seem quite extraordinary, wouldn't it? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not particularly. The impact and leadership of the head and senior teachers and the rest of the management team is what makes the difference to schools. When that management structure changes, then very often the school's Ofsted assessment reflects that by either goung up or down. If anything, your argument is one in favour of articles on the head teachers, not the schools that they happen to work in from time to time. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Download the inspection report 19% of schools got awarded Outstanding in the 2008/09 ofsted report. This only shows a small proportion of schools which were inspected in that year. Essentially thousands of UK schools will obtain a grade 1 ofsted. I judge that gives only very localised notability at best and certainly nowhere near national notability. Yugosithlord (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be some misunderstanding evident here, particlularly amongst US editors, about what exactly an Ofsted rating means. It is absolutely nothing at all like the Blue Ribbon School awards in the States. Ofsted is a UK government department tasked with assessing every educational establishment in the UK against the prevailing educational standards. Every school has an Ofsted rating, and that rating changes from time to time. Thousands of schools are assessed as "outstanding", one of the official categories that doesn't necessarily mean "outstanding" in the general sense of that word. Nice for the teachers, pupils, and parents, but not especially noteworthy. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The arguments in the first two AfDs are not invalidated by creating a third one. The rating doesn't make the school automatically notable, but the third party coverage it generated does. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The arguments in the previous AFDs were as misinformed as they are here. I waited a while before renominating this unremarkable school again, just in case anyone did manage to find anything to assert notability. So far, no one has. The third party coverage is a single news page from the local MP's website. Hardly significant, considering the MP visits schools routinely. Perhaps if the school's achievement had been covered in a national newspaper - or even a local one - I might have been persuaded otherwise. But as now, there's absolutely nothing to suggest this school is notable enough for an article. Majorly talk 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some primary schools will be clearly notable for some special reason--I don't think this is, it is not other than an ordinarily good good one. I could stop here, and say we have an accepted compromise, which there is no particular reason to disturb, and say what I alway do for these, which is "merge". But since there seems to be a more general discussion: :We could either cover primary schools in general, or not. It would not be totally against the spirit of the encyclopedia to include them, nor would it be to exclude them. The GNG is not a problem--we could argue under it either way: If we wanted to include, we could probably find reliable sources for all of them. They all have accessible government reports of some kind-certainly they do in the UK, and increasingly in the US, and probably in many other countries. They were all built at some point, and there are almost certainly news sources to that effect--though rarely online at this time except for the US ones included in Google News Archive, they'd be in local libraries and local historical societies. A great number would be at least mentioned in published local histories. Not all of them keep track of alumni, but every notable person went to one or another of them. Or if we wanted to exclude, we could easily define the reports and news articles and local mentions as not being "substantial" coverage. If we considered them justified under WP:N, we could still exempt them under one or another existing or new provision of WP:NOT. As for broader considerations, we could exclude, because we could almost never could give more information than their own websites, and there is rarely any interest other than purely local. Or we could include because we, unlike the school websites, are a permanent encyclopedia that can be edited objectively by those not connected with the school, & kept free from promotional material. There's another factor, which personally I consider the most important one. If we include them, we will get a great deal of very poorly written undocumented articles; but at the same time, we provide an opportunity for the students to learn about making and maintaining articles in Wikipedia by writing decent articles, or improving the naïve ones. (I can see actively writing to headmasters: an article on your school has been started, but needs improvement. It would make a good class project--here's how we suggest doing it.... )
What people at AfD tend to lose sight of is that we make the rules collectively, and we can make within extremely broad limits whatever rules we please about what to include in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is different -- we are not operating under a set of rules we have been given, nor need we conform to any outside standard. We make our own standards, and can use what factors we want. Most of the arguments given above on each side are reasonable ones. So what do we want to do? Myself, I'm undecided. I think we need to come to some new plan about local articles in general because for them all, not just schools, an argument can be made in either direction that would make sense, and it depends what we want to do--we could choose either way. (My current thoughts are a Wikipedia II--not a Wikia, rather something ad-free and conforming to all our principles, and made the same way, except that local importance is sufficient, and any reliable source will do--along with an increase in the N level for the main Wikipedia.)
Deciding in general means some way of deciding that does not require an unreachable supermajority, that has general consensus, not just from a small group here, that balances the feelings of those who want to work on that type of articles with the community as a whole. and that would have stability. We have the present compromise here in order to have some stability, but it seems necessary to defend it again every month or so--and similarly with other compromises. We also have the present compromise in order to avoid the trouble of these discussions of every one of the hundreds of thousand individual schools. I think we should change it, but that should be done as part of a rational planning process. I'm not saying keep or delete, because my argument could lead to either conclusion. If we want to keep the present rules, Majorly is right--this school is not an appropriate exception. But do we? DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having AfDs or any editorial board decide what is "important" enough to include at Wikipedia is an extremely bad idea. Part of Wikipedia's success is that this is the first place to come to if you want a start to learn about anything. Forking into important articles and unimportant articles is the wonderful world of Larry Sanger. As Jimbo said eons ago, all we need do here is see that the article meets the content criteria: Is it Verifiable? Does it maintain a Neutral Point of View? Does it use No Original Research? This article uses multiple reliable sources to do exactly that. There is no reason to delete it whatsoever. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The school has very little coverage in reliable sources (mentions in ranking lists do not count.) The Ofsted rating may or may or not make the school exceptional in its country (the article does not demonstrate that it would; for example it does not tell how many other schools received the same rating.) However, the lack of coverage in reliable sources indicates that the school is not notable in any case. Enough time has been given for editors to improve the article and add reliable sources; it is unlikely the article would become notable in the future either. Offliner (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourced, clean article on a public body with a clear claim to notability. Smile a While (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any notability here. Where is it? Majorly talk 20:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, shucks; I tried to stay out of it, but this article has been stubbified by the same people here arguing that it lacks content. The reasons given for content removal include "recentism", a neologism usually reserved to articles on flash-in-the pan pop culture topics (like contestants on television shows) and subjects that have had a major amount of recent coverage in the news due to death, arrest, et cetera of another subject to which they are tangentially-related, but not in a manner that confers any real notability. I have never before seen removal of sports teams and league standing statistics from any school articles on the basis of recentism, and is is usually poor form to stubbify an article while at afd and then use as an argument for deletion the fact that it has so little content. Also notability is never to be used to determine what content is in an article; just what articles we have. Let me reiterate: article content does not have to be notable, content sources do not have to be notable, only article subjects have to be notable. An article on a school may contain any suitably-sourced content that can be considered encyclopedic, as long as it is neutral and verifiable. There is also no rule that you can not include any information that is sourced to the subject itself; only that such content does not count to establish notability in most cases. We very often include statistical and historical information from school and school district websites and publications in their articles. Only if and when such content is questioned or doubted, do we concern ourselves with obtaining other corroborating sources. We certainly do not remove such content on sight based on the source used; I mean its sports team scores, not BLP-sensitive stuff, for goodness sake. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There is no notability asserted. And reading through the entire discussion the only argument I found for keeping it was that it's rated among the top 20% of schools. I don't think that's any more notable than being in the bottom 20% of schools. Primary schools are generally not notable and there is no indication that this one is any different. It is not especially unique or magical, but we can all hold out hope that something astonishing (maybe it will be chosen for a reality television show, Little Brother) will make it notable in the future. Getting a high rating for a school, restaurant, beauty parlor, or on the SATs doesn't make a thing notable in and of itself. Sorry kids. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An average building filled with above-average pupils and teachers in an average area, in an article which includes a source from the Liberal Democrats (who control the LEA and are therefore disinclined to publish anything bad about this school). Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. According to the article, school occupies the whole of the site of a former hamlet, and is therefore notable since an entire hamlet was demolished to make way for the school. Ning-ning (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is completely incorrect. The hamlet ceased to exist decades before the school was built. The school occupies what I suppose was farmland. It was named after the hamlet, not replacing it. Majorly talk 22:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the hamlet exist at all? If it can't be shown to have existed then the Methodist booklet isn't an RS, and should be deleted from the article. That would include the reference to the building date of the school (also sourced from the booklet). If no other RS for the building date of the school can be provided, that would suggest that the school is non-notable. Ning-ning (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shear number of the sources do establish notability in this case. WP:NOTABILITY states: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." While all the sources my not have a great amount of depth, the number and the quality of the sources satisfies me of just passing WP:NOTE. --Oakshade (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the sources, three are links to performance tables (basically one source then), one is the school's own prospectus, another is a partisan MP's website, another a local history book which only gives the founding date of the school and the Ofsted report (the only source worth mentioning). Under close scrutiny, you'll find more depth in a puddle on a hot day. As for quality, the tables and the Ofsted report are of course reliable, but they are the same for every other primary school in the UK. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fundemantal misconception. It is very easy to write a neutral, verifiable article on an entirely non-notable subject. I could pick any ordinary primary school and make a more convincing article than this one. I could write an article about a single edition of Private Eye for instance, equally verifiable and neutral. But neither of those topics would be considered notable, just like the rather ordinary little primary school we're discussing here. If verifiability is the only argument that needs to be mustered in lieu of establishing notability then we might as well close AfD down. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a fundamental misconception that importance or notability are content criteria. The fact is that all V, NPOV, and NOR must be satisfied at the same time. You would need a secondary source for your article on the Private Eye issue, for instance, and not just the magazine itself. A fair overview of this is User:Uncle G/On notability. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need to be taught anything about notability by you DoubleBlue. Private Eye is a magazine rather well-known for being sued, so there are loads of secondary sources, newspaper reports, court cases ... and every primary school has received at least as much secondary coverage as this one, or as little as this one I should say. Nobody has yet established the notability of this school, without which all of your other alphabet soup is irrelevant. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is unclear, at least to me. Is it your contention that notability is not required for the subject of a wikipedia article, or that the notability of this primary schools has bewn established in the article? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comments here were just in regards to whether notability was the primary content criterion. My weak keep argument is way above stating, basically, that I feel there are enough independent sources for an article on this school but significant coverage in a reliable source would be preferable. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's included at list of schools in Stockport (which is the local education authority). Nev1 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many schools there for anything beyond directory style information, hence why it is a list, a more local education article is probably needed. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and there's been some discussion about producing something along these lines. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes something like that is more along the lines of my thinking. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Primary schools are generally not notable, and this is no exception. Reywas92Talk 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons above. Basing notability on any of these rating systems is in my opinion inherently flawed. The school can pass one evaluation at a high level and then fail the next. Is that notable? If a school has a track record of passing these evalualitations then maybe it is notable for that reason. Also over time these evaualation systems could give every school a top rating. Does that then make every elementary school notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per DGG. (Meaning DGG's comments in the previous AfD rather than this one; his words from then sum up my reaction perfectly.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not particularly notable one of seven primary schools in the Stockport area graded exceptional [3]. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless we are saying that primary schools are always not notable ( and I don't see any policy requirement for this) then we need a criterion for notability and an independent body assessing as 'outstanding' is good enough for me. apart from that it is a sourced page that meets policies. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am verifiable. You could write an article about me. But it would be deleted, because I'm not notable. Notability may not be a policy, but it's a rule all the same. It's not something we choose. Again, Wikipedia is not a directory, and all the article really says to us is that it exists and it had good results one year. Majorly talk 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lane_End_Primary_School_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1140153806"