Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chestnut Grove School (London)


 * 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Chestnut Grove School (London)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

For lack of notability. A Google-search for the school only gives hits on database like listings of schools and the school's own website. I propose Chestnut Grove School gets deleted along with it, since that disambiguation will then not link to anything. TheFreeloader (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This school exists, articles are written about it, and information is easy to find about it. The sources found on Google News (not to mention google books and elsewhere not so FUTONable) are certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - firstly it is a high school and I support the arguments for keeping high schools at WP:NHS. Secondly, there are several claims for notability; it is the first Arts College in England and was described by Ofsted as "Chestnut Grove School is an outstanding school.", assessed as Grade 1, the highest designation for a UK high school. and there are plenty of sources from which the page can be expanded. Sure it is a sub-stub at present but the way forward is to expand it; always much harder than proposing deletion, but infinitely better for the development of the encyclopaedia. TerriersFan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep We have a well established practice of keeping all High school articles. The rationale has been said before: since 95% are notable if people look hard enough, it's not worth the trouble to bother discussing the others, and simpler to keep them all.    DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, like DGG says. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2010 (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.