Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orleans Infants 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 keep since there was no consensus. I counted 11 delete votes, 9 keep votes, 1 mege vote, 1 keep or merge and one rename vote. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orleans Infants School
There seems to be no hint of notability attached to this preschool, other than the fact that User:NeilRickards attended it. He created the stub, and it hasn't been edited for over a month - so it's had plenty of time to grow - and, if every user creates a stub for their preschool, this is just going to spiral out of hand. Non-encyclopaedic, so it should be deleted (see below for the reasons I altered my vote). Jasonglchu 13:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. For people not acquainted with the UK education system, please take note that this is not a preschool.  It is subject to inspections by the same agency that inspects all schools and it teaches the national curriculum.  The last OFSTED inspection examined and praised teaching quality with respect to "mathematics and the reading, speaking and listening aspects of English."  This particular school didn't do so well, apparently, teaching kids to write--this was based on the national SAT tests at age 7.  It may teach children aged 4-7, but that is the age at which British children start attending school and learning to read, write and do mathematics.  It's a serious teaching institution, not a nursery school. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree; further readers please note that I have withdrawn my assertion for deletion, and changed to a weak keep. I'll probably start talking in the schools proposal entry, though - I still contend that not every school qualifies as wikiworthy. jglc | t | c 20:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. not notable See also Votes for deletion/St. Stephen's School, Twickenham. Dunc|&#9786; 13:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable stub. One month really isn't enough for organic growth, you need six months to a year.  I don't see the problem with people recording infant's schools, or why things should "spiral out of control" if people made articles about them.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony, on this VfD entry (and several others), you have voted to keep. Might I ask why?  I understand one of your reasons is that you feel as though it is acceptable to include minor entries because Wikipedia is not paper.  I'm claiming that, even though Wikipedia does have virtually unlimited room to grow, its goal is still to be an encyclopaedic reference work.  As such, non-notable entries, such as this one, must not be allowed to flourish.  This school (and the other that you and I have voted on) is non-notable, has no listed well-known alumni, and seems to be just another minor educational facility.  This is one step away from allowing every principal, teacher, or tutor to have their own wikipedia entry, which, I gather, is generally frowned upon. Jasonglchu 15:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. I see somewhat where you're coming from, after reading Schools. I still feel as though this article (and the others currently up for deletion) fails to meet the established criteria in that article, specifically that further NPOV information cannot be gathered. Jasonglchu 15:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:SCH in general recommends merging because these schools rarely seem to get deleted. Schools are public entities so it's very, very easy to acquire public neutral about them and present it in a neutral manner. For instance I added a link to the OFSTED report for one school and may do the same for this one.  Schools appear in the local press, in political campaigns, and as premises for polling stations and the like.
 * And if this were to be merged,it should probably be merged to Richmond on Thames, which is the Local Education Authority. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can see where you're coming from, and it seems a good compromise. Jasonglchu 16:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. NeoJustin 17:30, June 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into an article on the local school authority. &mdash; RJH 17:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a PRESCHOOL, for crying out loud! --Carnildo 18:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know what you mean by a "pre-school." Children start school at age 4-5 (year zero) in the UK and are taught reading and arithmetic from the first day. it's a school. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In the United States (and presumably some other countries) children are often sent to a preschool the year before public school begins. Such preschools are not public institutions and vary widely in quality and what material they cover, if any at all. Gamaliel 22:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then this isn't a preschool. It's an infant school teaching the national syllabus, monitored by OFSTED and subject to quality control. We have nursery schools for children younger than four but mostly they're glorified childcare facilities. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Will we see articles on day care centers next? Gamaliel 20:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Schools belong in the encyclopedia. They don't call them the "formative years" for nothing. Unfocused 20:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, absolutely ridiculous to have an article on every single preschool in the world. How about every Kindercare while we're at it? RickK 22:09, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is highly unlikely due to the lack of active members of Wikipedia. We do not have 6.4 billion users. Celestianpower 22:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say merge or keep. As I have said once or twice before, it's less intimidating to edit someone elses work than start afresh. Celestianpower 22:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. Let's give it more than 30 days to grow. Double Blue  (Talk) 23:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this please it is verifiable and npov too Yuckfoo 23:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and describing it as a preschool is highly misleading. Kappa 23:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:58, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
 * Rename to Richmond on Thames Local Education Authority and build a stong article at that page. Vegaswikian 05:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * All the kindergartens now, right? delete - Skysmith 08:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent the situation. Kappa 08:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For years Wikipedians almost unanimously considered preschool and elementary schools equally non-encyclopedic, so just because a few relative newcomers want to turn Wikipedia into everything2.com, whether or not it's a preschool seems like picking nits. Niteowlneils 17:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I had the impression that all wikipedians were equal, silly me. Kappa 20:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The only point was that, the more familiar people are with Wikipedia, the more they value keeping the 'inclusion threshold' high, at least according to emperical evidence. Niteowlneils 04:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * PS I guess the other 'then versus now' point is that Wikipedia's current reputation is built on 4+ years of operating under a higher 'inclusion threshold' than has recently been put in place. I am just concerned what might happen to Wikipedia's credibility if we continue to cast the net ever wider, then wider, then wider, etc. ... Niteowlneils 07:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain the mechanism by which you believe wikipedia's credibility might be damaged. Kappa 07:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's rather an odd thing to say, I agree. Even taken at face value it's a little strange.
 * Niteowlneils, in his current user at least, only goes back a little more than a year, to February 2004. He's a bit of a newcomer himself.
 * That's correct, I only have 18-19,000 edits in about 15 months. Most recent knee-jerk 'keep' votes are coming from people with about 4-8 months here, or less. My 'my contributions' pages give most of the handful of IPs I've editted from. I have never editted under a different account. Niteowlneils 04:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Searching the deletion archives for 2003, I find no records of any deletion discussions relating to elementary schools. None. The earliest elementary/junior school deletion debate I can find is in May, 2004, barely a year ago.  The result was deletion, A grand total of eight editors, including the nominator, were involved in the discussion.
 * The next elementary up for deletion was Meriwether Lewis Elementary School in July last year, just eleven months ago. A grand total of twelve editors were involved in that discussion and the result was delete but this was complicated by a copyright issue.
 * Dodd middle school, listed the very next day, barely scraped a result that the closer interpreted as "rough consensus [to delete] (10 delete, 5 keep, 2 anon votes)". Clearly there is no truth to any claim that there has been near unanimity on the question of elementary schools for years.  Wikipedia simply hasn't been considering the issue for long enough for that to be true, and the figures, such as they exist, are far from suggestive of unanimity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * VfD recordkeeping changed dramatically around 9 months ago (give or take--I don't have an exact date). Anyway, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find older VfD discussions. Niteowlneils 04:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I tracked deletion discussions back as far as 2003. The first deletion log page in the current format is:
 * Votes_for_deletion/Log/2004_December_25
 * That is preceded by:
 * Archived delete debates
 * which tracks deletion debates back in month-per-page format as far as July, 2004, then a page for May-June, 2004 and another for January-April 2004, preceded by:
 * Archived delete debates/2003
 * All deletion discussions May 2004 and after are held in Wikipedia space in a page with the current format. Some April 2004 discussions are in template space, others in the current form.  Prior to April 2004 discussions are stored on the talk page corresponding each article which is linked from the above archive page.  Are there some deletion discussions that I missed? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * All deletion discussions May 2004 and after are held in Wikipedia space in a page with the current format. Some April 2004 discussions are in template space, others in the current form.  Prior to April 2004 discussions are stored on the talk page corresponding each article which is linked from the above archive page.  Are there some deletion discussions that I missed? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Quale 21:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - preschool or otherwise, it's NN Proto 11:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Preschools and elementary schools are not encyclopedic, and any grade range school with only 14 displayed hits is most certainly not. And how is "Many children from Orleans Infants move on to St. Stephens School." "Verifiable"? Not from the hits I see. Niteowlneils 17:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What does "fourteen displayed hits" mean? Surely you're not relying on google to tell you all there is to know about a school! If an article contains unverifiable information, the solution to this problem is to remove the information.  Deleting the article is not necessary in such cases.  Could you explain why you think infant schools (this is not a preschool) are not encyclopedic?  In what significant operational way do they differ from high schools, which also have teachers, pupils, sports teams, premises, curricula and community links? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don;t think high schools are encyclopedic, either, but at least most of those years are remembered by students--for most people earlier grades are mostly a blur. And, given that school attendence is mandatory in many countries, which particular school one attended isn't necessarily that formative over their entire lifetime. Niteowlneils 04:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Infant schools have athletic teams that compete with other schools? Never seen that, but if it's true, no wonder modern youth are showing so many more signs of stress. Niteowlneils 07:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, it may be apples and oranges, but I am bothered more by excessive microscopic fictional bits than schools, and even more by inclusion of 'current events'[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Unusual_transclusion_issue_not_covered_by_policy] than either schools or fictional bits. Niteowlneils 07:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Many children from Orleans Infants move on to St. Stephens School." This page from St. Stephen's verifies that Orleans Infants graduates have priority placement in the school. Double Blue  (Talk) 23:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That page says "If {emphasis added} St. Stephen’s School is over-subscribed, priority will be given as follows:", then criteria number six is "Children at Orleans Infants School, with priority given first to those in public care, then on the grounds of proximity." That states policy, which gives zero information about what happens in reality--just some theoretical "if"s. Niteowlneils 04:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete any more of this stuff and the Random Page function would be unusable.  Grue  14:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's an interesting argument (though I question whether a random page function is more important than content). As a test, I hit random page fifty times.  I got one school article.  Clearly schools are not a problem for Wikipedia's random page function, even if one were to agree with the proposition that all school articles are "fluff". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the idea of "unusable". What is the Random Page function for anyway? Kappa 16:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I used to use it to find cleanup candidates. Of course lots of school articles are in need of cleanup, so arguably only getting one school out of fifty clicks (and it was a fairly well written articles at that) is a BAD thing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's there for finding something interesting that you otherwise won't find. If there would be a one-line substub for each preschool in the world like that one all useful content in Wikipedia would be outnumbered. People are wasting time on wikifying these articles, but no one reads them, because there's nothing to read. Everyone who has any relation to that school knows everything in that article already. Everyone other just doesn't care. What's the purpose of it's existance?  Grue  16:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You've made two statements for which you provide no evidence:
 * "People are wasting time on wikifying these articles, but no one reads them, because there's nothing to read"
 * "Everyone who has any relation to that school knows everything in that article already. Everyone other just doesn't care."
 * Once you get beyond these evidence-free statements I don't think there's a lot to the anti-school argument.
 * Schools are of intense interest to many people, particularly parents. The sheer amount of online information about each school in my country is quite formidable.  Nearly every school is inspected once every five years and the inspection reports are online.  This is an inherently encyclopedic piece of information. With schools on Wikipedia we can (and are in the process of) map every single US public school to the related school district and municipality.  This enhances the articles on the municipalities themselves.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. School has a history of nearly 100 years, undoubtedly notable.  &mdash;RaD Man(talk) 17:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Both one of my great-aunts and one of my great-great aunts lived more than 100 years--does that automatically make them notable/encyclopedic? Niteowlneils 07:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep per what Radman1 said -CunningLinguist 16:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sigh.  I really wish I did not care so much about wikipedia, because then I could just sit back and laugh at the irony that all the trivial information being bandied about from pokemon to preschools will ultimately doom the project to a level of triviality approaching that of many of its articles. Indrian 03:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this another "random page" thing? Kappa 05:32, 13 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 .