Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caversham 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. The "notability for high achievement" argument, though not conclusively successful in this debate, has sufficient weight to prevent a consensus for deletion at this time. Xoloz (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Caversham Primary School

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable elementary school. Blueboy96 21:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Icestorm815 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, possible speedy. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a primary school not an elementary school, and it definitely doesn't fall within the speedy deletion criteria. It is ranked as the best performing primary school in its area whether that is notable or not is up for debate. RMHED (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: It is an elementary school by American/Canadian definition but Primary by English definition. Anyways, nice research. I have added this in the article. Billscottbob (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a high-achieving elementary school that, as RMHED has said, is one of the best in the area. Billscottbob (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this one fooled me - I live only 2 kilometres from Caversham Primary School, but 15,000 kilometres from Berkshire. if kept, it might be worth daisambiguating, since I suspect it's only a matter of time before there's an article on Caversham Primary School in Dunedin, NZ. Grutness...wha?  00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Unless there is something else, I don't see how this school meets Wikipedia notability requirements. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I slightly clarified the rather poorly written article (still needs considerable explansion) --apparently it is the best performing school in its region, and there's an RS to prove it. DGG (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some school will come out on top on a test. This did. Good for them, but nothing of encyclopedic value. Greswik (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 'CommentWe accept Blue Ribbon Schools in the US as notability. the best performing schools,athletically or academically, makesa reasonable distinction for notability. DGG (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given notability is not temporary, this will possibly make many schools notable given enough time: just get on top (or in this case within top 200) of some test for a year, and you are notable for eternity. It's for kids in the age 4-11. I know I'm speculating here, but I would think it's just a matter of having a little bit more luck with the kids coming to the school (ie having a higher percentage of children of academics) to get a higher scoring with this age-group. And the top 200 thing: that's what it take to make it notable? I "feel" this is wrong (I know I am a bit away from the normal reasoning here, but it is still what's going on in my head when I read this.) Neither the article nor the reference really explains why the school is better. If the blue ribbon schools get their award for their work, I imagine (again;-)) some explaniation excists from the authorities why the school is doing better. Greswik (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep due to its distinguished status of being one of the highest rated schools in the UK. --Oakshade (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comment above. RMHED (talk) 20:22, 14 December 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.