Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straits 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Straits Primary School
Non notable school Pally01 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason: Roberts Primary School Coseley High School


 * Delete all Primary schools 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)
 * Redirect secondary school (sorting out what I misread, see not below.) Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Sedgley per the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. If that is unacceptible, then keep the high school article. (I hate dislike it when people attempt to delete multiple articles with a single nomination. This practice should be voided. :-) &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn' notice that the Cosely one was a High School. Changing my position on that one.  Bulk deletes are perfectly valid when grouping entirely similar items, and we have an editor who has created a load of non notable stuff that has just all been nominated separately. Fiddle Faddle 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in the event of mass-deletes, I get concerned that we may be tossing out the baby with the bath water. Most people seem to indicate their preference once, but I'm not sure that every page is being properly examined. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We should prolly discuss this in a different place. We have a duty to read every article we express an opinion on.  We can make errors (see my one), but we are also human.  In general, where there is a huge suite of articles produced by an author who may have misinterpreted Wikipediaa's ethos, a bulk AfdD shoudl get a fuller consensus.  Editing 10 individual AfD's is ofetn beyond us :) Fiddle Faddle 17:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Strong notability provided in articles, and all schools are notable, of course. Allow for organic expansion & growth. --ForbiddenWord 18:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into Sedgley. All Schools are NOT notable and elementary/primary schools should rarely(if ever) have their own articles. TJ Spyke 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Coseley High School (now renamed to Coseley School. Keep Straits Primary School which is one of the comparatively few schools considered bad enough by OSFTED to be "placed into special measures". Apparently it has improved, so its ups and downs seem indicative of notability, even though it is an elementary school. Neutral on Roberts Primary School. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all three per Fiddle Faddle. --Aaron 21:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Arbusto 21:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete of the primary schools, delete the high school, as none assert sufficient ntoability. -- Kicking222 23:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep — Joshua Johaneman [[Image:Flag_of_New_York.svg|30px|]] 01:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, It's 100 years old. Not just a new school.  That might make it notable.--Rayc 04:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Straits Primary School and Roberts Primary School as insufficiently notable, which is the reason neither of these articles have credible, third-party sources, and they never will. No opinion on Coseley High School. -- Satori Son 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Silensor/Schools. Age of the school aside, it is one of the top performers in the region.  Silensor 08:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per ForbiddenWord. bbx 08:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments above, one of these schools are over 100 years old. Yamaguchi先生 08:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The UK has several more centuries than that of history, and many primary schools in buildings over 100 years old. Age alone does not confer any form of notability Fiddle Faddle 11:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all as completely non-notable. Prolog 12:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Fiddle Faddle Nigel (Talk) 12:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. None but Straits have any assertion of notability, and only Straits is weakly notable, probably good for a few years, but certainly not the stuff of the 100 year test. If Straits was not the turnaround story, it would have zero notability. Ohconfucius 13:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Silensor and per verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 18:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Coseley High School. I consider most secondary schools to be inherently notable. No opinion on the two primary schools. -- Necrothesp 01:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Charlesknight 10:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please the schools are notable verifiable and meet our guidelines too Yuckfoo 04:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Schoolcruft. Catchpole 07:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per years of discussion. I could have supported the merge above, but those votes count as a keep for this article rather then a delete after a merge. Vegaswikian 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep to Coseley for being old. weak Delete the other two, since they are non-notable primary schools. The deletions are weak because I'm tempted to argue for a procedural keep all since this seems like a bad bundling. JoshuaZ 22:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn schools. Next we'll have driving and typing schools and schools from Pokemon here. Carlossuarez46 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth, meets proposed guidelines. Bahn Mi 22:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all, should be verifiable, and it doesn't make sense to nominate these articles together anyway. JYolkowski // talk 00:50, 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.