Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Chad's R.C 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

St Chad's R.C Primary School
Non notable school Pally01 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Primary schools are not notable per se. This one has no inherent notability, no citations, nothing to say that it should be here.  Fails on just about every criterion.  Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It has citations now, and it links to published works which satisfy the primary notability criterion. Uncle G 08:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Those citations are, I fear, of a trivial nature. A citation to confirm the head teacher's name and another to confirm how many children attend do not in themselves confer any form of notability.  If they were you could write an article on me and argue that I am notable because I appear in the electoral roll, the phone book and because my name appears on a reasonable number of web sites.  However, even though I am an expert in my professional work, I am not notable for an encyclopaedia.  Nor is this school and nor are the majority of schools of this class.  A primary school per se, unless itself genuinely having something that is truly notable just does not make the cut.  While WP:NOT paper, let us leave an article on this and other run of the mill schools until something notable happens there.  WP:NOT a directory and not a list of indiscriminate information.  Fiddle Faddle 12:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Sedgley per proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep- strongly notable school, as all schools are notable. Allow for organic expansion and growth. --ForbiddenWord 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a blanket. Please don't use "stuck record" arguments.  The WP:SCHOOL criteria focus upon the provenances and depths of independent sources for the school at hand, which is the proper study of encyclopaedists.  Arguments about schools should do the same. Uncle G 08:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fiddle Faddle. --Aaron 21:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools, a complete rewrite of this article is in progress. Silensor 08:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of those arguments are deeply flawed. Please don't use "stuck record" arguments.  The WP:SCHOOL criteria focus upon the provenances and depths of independent sources for the school at hand, which is the proper study of encyclopaedists.  Arguments about schools should do the same. Uncle G 08:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Present version meets proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines.  Yamaguchi先生 08:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article links to a BBC News article on the school and a 31-page detailed Ofsted report. The primary WP:SCHOOL notability criterion is satisfied.  Keep. See how easy this is?  One addresses the source material that is available for the school at hand.  No "stuck record" arguments, assertions of flawed blanket criteria, or subjective judgements of what one personally considers to be notable, are required.  Uncle G 08:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Ofsted report is a trivial report, no more demonstrative of notability than similar reports on nursing homes, audit reports on public companies, and similar mandatory inspections which result in written results which may, or may not, be visible on the web. The BBC reporting is also trivial, merely regurgitating league tables. This is reporting on a par with the telephone book, a birth record, etc. There is no non-trivial reporting on this school. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing the sources. But that is nonetheless untrue.  The Ofsted report is far from trivial, and is nothing like a telephone book entry.  It is a 31-page detailed work that covers topics ranging from parents' views on the adverse impact of the rate of staff turnover through the school's new ICT room to the school's performance in SAT scores.  Please actually read it. This is what a "telephone book" entry would look like, for comparison. Uncle G 10:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All UK schools in the state sector have OFSTED reports. There is nothing notable about these. They are unexceptionable and nopt inherently notable, nor do they confer notability.  Fiddle Faddle 10:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are erroneously conflating "exceptional" and "notable". You are also applying notability to sources, which is highly confused thinking.  The important aspects of sources as far as we are concerned as encyclopaedists is how much they contain on the subject and who wrote and fact checked them, i.e. their depths and provenances as I wrote above.  Uncle G 11:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is kind of you to point that out, and kind to use a $10 word when a $1 word will do. I am not doing anything of the sort. There is nothing notable about a generic document like an OFSTED report.  They are mandatory reports by the regulator of schools on each and every school in the nation, at least in the state system.  The content of such a report is only likely to be notable if the school itself is, in some manner, revolutionary.  Even "Special Measures" is not notability, just a category of school which faces closure unless something is done about the appalling performance there.  Fiddle Faddle 11:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then every limited company is notable: it has an auditors report. Have a look at the Commission for Social Care Inspection website: the care home at 10 Whitfield Avenue, Seabridge, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, ST5 2JH, has been inspected; County Nursing Ltd., The Lodge, Church Square, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 1SA, has been inspected. If OFSTED reports are non-trivial third-party reporting which demonstrates de facto notability, so do CSCI ones, no ? Let's not go there. That is where the every- sperm school-is-sacred crowd will take us. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Not notable and no notability asserted. A school would be notable if it didn't have an OFSTED report. Well, it wouldn't be a school..... ;-) Ohconfucius 12:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - notability not proven Nigel (Talk) 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; absence of non-trivial third-party reporting demonstrates that this is not a notable school. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as verifiability (rather than notability) is the standard. --Myles Long 18:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. Does that mean that, if we can verify that you exist you deserve an article?  Or that I do?  I think not, or every corporation woudl be in here, every entry in the phone book. Fiddle Faddle 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - no notability. --Charlesknight 10:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please per uncle g the school is notable and meets wp:school criterion Yuckfoo 04:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete' Only a primary school so not notable per WP:Schools. Ofsted reports are trivial and generic. Catchpole 07:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Angus and Catrchpole. JoshuaZ 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per years of discussions. Vegaswikian 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Vegaswikian; this is a nonsense article about a nn school. Carlossuarez46 20:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth, meets proposed guidelines. Bahn Mi 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I pity the fool who doesnt vote KEEP.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 23:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I find that substantially offensive, and most assuredly uncivil. As an attempt at humour I feel it has missed the mark completely.  You are entitled to an opinion on the article, and indeed on other editors, but that is not the way to express an opinion about other editors.  Additionally you have provided precisley no rationale for your opinion.  Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously you sir have never heard of Mr. T. Not to mention the fact that my keep vote has as much weight and rationale behind it as the average delete vote. Stop being a sanctimonious ass and WP:AGF  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 23:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But if you must have a rationale... how about the fact the ENTIRE SCHOOL was forced by the UK Govt to be screened for Tuberculosis due to the death of a Student Teachers Aid from TB? That certainly makes it noteworthy in my book.   ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not I who "must have a rationale", but the discussion. It interests me that you have found this news item but not edited the school article to reflect this new information.  I suggest you add it if you feel it asserts the school's notability.  As for assuming good faith, I do, always.  I simply found your words offensive, and said so.  I am sure you wrote them in good faith, but one perosn's good faith can sometimes offend other people.  I would also suggest to you that you should have said "stop behaving as a sanctimonious ass" if that is what you felt.  Your phraseology attacks a person, when you should deprecate a behaviour.  Fiddle Faddle 06:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nacon kantari  23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable and meets WP:SCHOOL criteria. Merging is okay too.  JYolkowski // talk 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per years of discussions. This is an informative article on a UK school that needs time to expand. --JJay 17:41, 27 September 2006 (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.