Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chase bridge

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Chase bridge

 * Delete School vanity page. - Forbsey 00:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. -- Joolz 00:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Chase Bridge Primary School. It exists, and it's a school. Delete, I misunderstood the British school system.  Dcarrano 00:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment and that is encylopedic somehow? Vegaswikian 06:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, article doesn't provide remotely interesting facts about school or its history. Decapod73 00:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, delete all primary shools, especially ones with incorrect names. --nixie 04:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well it seems verifiable, and not limited to original research, particularly with this report of it by the BBC: . It isn't really written in the style of vanity. The BBC report lists it as 'Chase Bridge Primary School' so perhaps a redirect to there. Here's some more info:, and PDF reports are definitely professional looking: , and it's even listed here as a school: Twickenham, where other schools already have their own articles, including another infant school, Orleans Infants School. Well from what I've gathered I see no reason to delete it, I am also curious as to User:Dcarrano's reason for a change of opinon? Thanks, Seeaxid 00:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In the US, we don't normally use the "primary"/"secondary" school terminology as far as I know. I thought for whatever reason it was more like what we here would call a "high school," although even then I jumped the gun since I don't think every high school should be included.Dcarrano 00:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The primary/secondary terminology is sort of retained in the term post-secondary (to refer to anything after high school). At least, it was in my high school. Interesting, if not particularly relevant. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 15:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We call it primary, secondary then tertiary education, tertiary having the same meaning you had specified for post-secondary. Seeaxid 05:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone bothers to at least try to add some material explaining why it is notable or interesting. (I figure that if the original writer doesn't care enough and the VfD process doesn't shake anything out, it's unlikely that it will ever be expanded.) -Aranel (" Sarah ") 15:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC) (I'm now removing my vote since it's been expanded. Move to Chase Bridge Primary School is fine. -Aranel (" Sarah  ") 23:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC))
 * Just to clarify: move and redirect to Chase Bridge Primary School. Notability is not a policy. I think the following web site moreover affirms that the school is also refered to as: Chase Bridge alone:, as is indicated by only those words being bolded, as opposed to say, Carlisle Infant School, where that entire sentence is bolded.


 * There's absolutely no sense in deleting valid information just because it's not "interesting", how subjective's that. If "it's unlikely that it will ever be expanded", then merge it with Twickenham, rather than pointlessly removing useful information.


 * And I may mention that I've also expanded it. Seeaxid 05:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Lack of notability is a valid de facto reason for deletion. (By which I mean is that it's used by so many people that it doesn't really matter if it's policy or not.) Personally, I feel that a school article should at least make a half-hearted effort to explain why anyone should care, since they tend to be of interest to only a very small community (i.e. people who went there or whose children may go there). As long as there is some effort made along these lines, I'm willing to opt on the side of inclusion and let it be. This is my personal choice and you are welcome to disagree. But in light of your expansion I'm removing my delete vote. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 23:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You said: "Lack of notability is a valid de facto reason for deletion." If it isn't policy or guideline, or anything definitive, then it defies logic to state it alone as a reason for deletion, were it policy one could argue, and come to concensus to alter the policy. As there is no place to change the policy, simply stating it as definitive itself, giving no logical basis to support it (which a policy page would act as) it is simply irrational. [annex: this comment is essentially based on the contraversial nature of deletion in regards to schools, and that for most other general topics there notability guidlines at Votes_for_deletion/Precedents as you may well know]
 * You had also said: "I feel that a school article should at least make a half-hearted effort to explain why anyone should care,", now let me quote Schools/Arguments: "Those who advocate the deletion of schools sometimes use an argument to the effect that a school that doesn't have some special attribute--apart from being an institution of learning--has no identity and shouldn't be in Wikipedia.
 * This is a case of special pleading; there is no Wikipedia policy requirement that corresponds to this, it's just an ad hoc condition constructed to justify opposition to school articles." Seeaxid 04:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Part of the point of Schools is that there is not a clear consensus on what should be done ("It's been done, and we should all agree to disagree."). Often there turns out to be lack of consensus to delete, which qualifies as consensus to keep only by default. I am familiar with all of the arguments. (I remember when most of them originated.) I judge each school article on its individual merits and I intend to keep doing so. The beauty of the system is that we are free to disagree with one another on this. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 17:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

right|thumb|200px|You've gotta have [[WP:FAITH|faith.]]
 * Delete. Shazbot. Gamaliel 23:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd further advise anyone contemplating voting to peruse: Schools and Schools/Arguments, if not familiar with them already. Seeaxid 04:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC).
 * Essentially, this page is mentioned as one of threee (I believe) infant schools at the Twickenham article, so it seems obviously that it is a significant infant school within Twickenham (although probably not outside of it and perhaps not inside if Twickenham is actually a very, very small town), so it wouldn't bother me too much if relevant information was shifted to  the Twickenham article. Seeaxid 11:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Twickenham is a large and prosperous satellite of London. The school takes on junior children as well as infants (it's listed under both headings). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a reasonably good example of how to write an article about a British school. Good use is made of the OFSTED report and the external links section is well stocked. The article should of course be moved to the correct name, but that's not a decision I think we need discuss here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please tony is right this is a good article really so why get rid of it Yuckfoo 17:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * keep well done short article on an ACTUAL PLACE, if we can allow gobs of data on made up stuff like Pokemon ... I see no reason this cannot remain as well.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 00:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The later comments are not about the article that was nominated, but the article after several edits. The rewrite has made it appear that it is, or will be, encylopedic.  Vegaswikian 00:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article was nominated for VfD six minutes after it was created.  Even then it said "Chase Bridge is a primary school in Greater London that lies next to Twickenham Rugby ground," which could have left nobody in any position to claim that the information was not verifiable and neutral.  There is absolutely no excuse for VfDing articles so mindlessly and pointlessly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and thank wikipedia for graciously sharing this information about education in Twickenham. Kappa 00:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Nominator appears to grossly misunderstand the purpose of VfD.   &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good looking article. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:11, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
 * Keep. James F. (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any notable alumni, so it looks like the swimming pool's the most notable thing it has.  One of my friends has a swimming pool at his house; would we keep an article about him if I wrote one? --Idont Havaname 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Nominator should be drawn and quartered. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 02:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to have a look at WP:FAITH. -- Joolz 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. Double Blue  (Talk) 23:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete schoolcruft. Dunc|☺ 21:49, 22 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.