Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyneham 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Derild  49  21  ☼  11:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lyneham Primary School

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article may not meet Wikipedia's "Notability" guidelines. See Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes Shirt58 (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete per standard procedure for non-notable schools lower than the secondary level. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved this comment from the redundant nomination, Articles for deletion/Lyneham Primary School (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Adequately referenced. Appears suitably notable.  Read under services and activities. Gillyweed (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have added a major aspect of its history with refs (one of which is missing a volume number, sorry). There are some poor references where dead links are a problem because not enough reference info was inserted, but really, this is beyond question in meeting the notability guideline. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lyneham Primary School appears to have attracted notice as demonstrated by the references to verifiable external sources relating to its History and to its Services and Activities. Besseggen (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a good article (particularly compared to many other school articles) but it seems well referenced too. I have read the notability guidelines and this school seems to fit them, particularly as it had a role in changing Australian fire regulations.  With regard to user Carrite's comments above, it worries me that she or he proposes deletion just because it is a 'non-notable school below secondary level' without providing any argument that it is non notable.  This article has been around for a few years now and modified by several different users.  It should be kept. Edukatemenow (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, the rule of thumb is that primary schools are not notable. However, based on the number and variety of sources, it appears the article meets the general notability guidelines, and that the school is sufficiently specifically notable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the better written school articles.  Well referenced.  Appears notable. Thunderpup (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is well referenced and seems notable given the link to Govt fire regs. Seznik (talk) 08:48, 21 September 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.