Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlton Kings Junior 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   delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Charlton Kings Junior School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Junior school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: As above. Run-of-the-mill; no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Neutralitytalk 23:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * *Keep: The topic is notable per our official notability guideline (WP:GNG) as it is covered in detail in independent reliable sources like [www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/957387/urn/115736.pdf]. TDW   ✉  01:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per my comment at Articles for deletion/Cleves School, Weybridge. These sources are statutory inspection reports.  Every single school in England has one of these as a product of three yearly government inspections of schools. Thus if notability of this school is determined by the existence of the above inspection report, the conclusion of this is that every single other school in England must also be automatically be notable. The existence of publicly available documentation generated at various levels of government related to a subject automatically granting notability is plain absurd. Virtually every major building project in the UK generates many more pages of planning documentation.  Most of this is now publicly available online.  Does that mean we have sufficient notability to start articles for every branch of Tesco built in the last 30 years?
 * The government sector accounts for nearly half the UK economy. If we eliminated the government activity on such grounds that it is mundane then this would leave a correspondingly large hole in our coverage of the country.  But we are an encyclopedia and so are expected to cover everything; not just pop records and footballers. Warden (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say government reports are mundane. There is nothing wrong with using a routine government report as a reference, in an article where notability is already established. However,I can't see that a routine (generated by virtue of the subjects mere existence) government report can be used to establish such notability. As I have said, the logical conclusion of your position is that virtually every supermarket built in the UK is also notable by virtue of the fact that the planning process generated a number of hefty planning reports. Pit-yacker (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A planning document isn't such a good source because, by its nature, it will predate construction and so won't have much to say about the life and history of the place once it is up and running. Anyway, List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom seems to have lots of red links so there's work to do there too.  So many topics, so little time... Warden (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In reality, the content of the report isn't much use here either. It does little more than confirm the existence of the school and perhaps at a stretch tells us that the school's performance is pretty average. Pit-yacker (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The report covers the essential activities and facts about the school - this is its point and purpose.  If you're not interested in the school and its performance then this will naturally seem rather dry.  But in that case, you should move on to a topic which does interest you; not try to destroy this one because it bores you. Warden (talk)


 * Keep The school is notable, per the sources identified by TDW. Note that there is some scope for merger with Charlton Kings Infants' School &mdash; I have the impression that they were combined previously. Warden (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because there's no claim to notability beyond existence being made that would satisfy the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete While an inspection report is fine as a reference it does not establish notability. There are 16,000+ maintained Primary schools in England and Wales. Every one of them has an inspection report. To claim that a such a school is notable because it has been inspected is therefore the same as saying that it's notable because it exists.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest incubation as a last resort (Alternatives to deletion). I am sure that this school is more notable than you think. The school naturally harbors soon-to-be pupils of the high-ranking Balcarras School. TDW  ✉  00:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Charlton Kings where it is already  mentioned, per standard procedure. Non   notable schools are generally  not  deleted; instead,  as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to  the article about  the school district (USA) or to  the article about  the locality (rest  of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the  on  the redirect  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (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.