Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alder Coppice 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, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Alder Coppice Primary School
Non notable primary school Pally01 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the new WP:SCHOOLS. Being under Ofsted special measures means it IS the subject of a reliable source independent of the school itself (ie the Ofsted report). Notability is a fairly wooly concept - clearly if a subject is covered by such sources then they consider it notable, and (IMHO) therefore Wikipedia should too. Cynical 22:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redrirect to Sedgley. WP:SCHOOLS says it has to be the subject of MULTIPLE non-trivial sources. TJ Spyke 22:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete few if any primary schools are actually notable. Every single school in the country has an OFSTED. Guy 23:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Nigel (Talk) 12:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Jesus f**king christ, if we start keeping every primary school, I might quit WP altogether. -- Kicking222 13:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jesus f**king christ, if we start deleting every primary school, I might quit WP altogether (actually that's pure hyperbole, like the comment above). Most, if not all, primary schools are actually notable (but notability is purely subjective and thus has no real meaning). Let's make wikipedia into a useful encyclopedia by including articles on every possible subject, including every school on the planet. --JJay 15:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, according to WP:SCHOOL most schools in the UK meet its criteria for having a separate article. As welll, see User:JYolkowski/Notability for why lack of notability is not a reason for deletion.  For those that don't want this school to have its own article I would recommend looking at editorial actions such as merging, instead of deletion.  JYolkowski // talk 15:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN. Arbusto 17:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * delete Ofsted reports are trivial and generic. Catchpole 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Sedgley per proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. It doesn't merit an entire article page in its current form. If it is expanded in the future the page can be forked off. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please it is verifiable and meets proposed school guidelines Yuckfoo 04:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. And discount every reference to the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, because they are just that, proposed.  There is nothing at all notable about a primary school, even one where OFSTED rates it as performing so badly it requires special measures.  The school is not inherently notable by existing, nor even by its existence being verified.  Every school is not sacred.  This is a ten a penny primary school with no inherent notability.  It fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate load of guff precisely because it is indiscriminate.  We'll list every sewage farm next, just because someone can find it on a map.  Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Article denotes subject is clearly notable (like all other schools). Subject and its notability are verified by an Ofsted report. Nomination of any school for deletion is a waste of everyone's time involved, as these articles should be allowed organic expansion and growth. --ForbiddenWord 17:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an assertion, not an objectively provable fact. In what way is a primary school more notable than a long-established corner shop?  By reference to objectively provable metrics? Guy 22:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. For all of the reasons provided in the past by oh so many editors.  There is no consensus that all schools are notable.  Vegaswikian 05:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons established within User:Silensor/Schools as well as the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Silensor 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because POLICY is VERIFIABILITY, this is verifiable... "non notable" is not and has never been policy.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 20:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Silensor and Alkivar. --Myles Long 22:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Go duke this out at WP:SCHOOLS please people.  RFerreira 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, there is nothing at all that compels people to do this. If that proposed guideline ever gets accepted then it can be followed.  Until then it's a pretty insignificant primary school that had a hot air balloon launched in its grounds.  This is a nomination for deletion which seems to have attracted the "Keep it at any cost" brigade.  It is simply not worthy of inclusion.  Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion jack, and you're perfectly entitled to it. RFerreira 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes it is. I challenge you to edit this school's article to show and assert its notability.  There is too much "keep" but not enough action.  The challenge is not personal, it's directed at anyone who just gives a "keep" opinion on an article on a primary school that simply exists. If the article is worth keeping it's worth fighting for by improving it to put its worth beyond any doubt.  Fiddle Faddle 23:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * comment there do9esn't appear to be enough verifiable information to create a proverbly NPOV article.Geni 23:23, 28 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.