Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glory Farm Primary School

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Glory Farm Primary School
Primary school vanity. Interesting fact - they have had 2 headteachers, and it only gets worse... Dunc|&#9786; 18:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lovely article, though it could do with a bit of trimming.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Tony, do you really believe any article which uses first person is lovely?  RickK 21:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Various stylistic quibbles aside, I do really think it is a lovely article. The solution to bad style is editing, not deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It definately needs to be put into the third-person.  But that is no need for deletion. I am not swaying either way, so no vote for the moment. Sonic Mew 21:43, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * In case it will help, I've copy edited for third person. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable, important topic, nice article although needs cleanup. Kappa 23:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but it does need cleanup. Reading the article you wonder why it is a VfD selection. Vegaswikian 04:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reading the article makes it clear why it is a VfD selection. Quale 07:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge a trimmed down version to the appropriate geographical article. I mean, seriously, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, of what interest is it exactly that we need 'When it is sunny and nice they go on the field and when it is wet they go on the playground'? This sort of patently obvious statement is what you get when you start judging articles by length. If the authors want to contribute to Wikipedia, I'd rather they expanded the Bicester article than write overlong websites for their primary school (don't they have their own website for this sort of thing?). Average Earthman 08:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 13:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is too much.  Grue  13:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless blather. Gamaliel 15:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but it does need cleanup. Reading the article you wonder why it is a VfD selection. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up. I agree with WP:SCH. Double Blue  (Talk) 23:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. -CunningLinguist 00:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup as necessary. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions, and are therefore inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 04:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Bicester and delete - Skysmith 09:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please but clean up too Yuckfoo 21:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is improved by keeping this.  Nobody said everyone has to read every article they find.  If you're bored, move on.  --Unfocused 05:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN. If delete fails, Merge. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Primary schools are almost always not notable. Proto 11:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Normal keep. If the article doesn't meet your personal criteria for style, try editing it next time.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 22:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .