Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Green Primary School, Crawley


 * 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 05:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

West Green Primary School, Crawley
A school with 150 pupils is surely not notable Computerjoe 's talk 20:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Most Agreed, this school should not be included not notable for the wiki Aeon Insane Ward  20:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into West Green, Crawley. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at the authors contributions makes me suspect that they are a teacher at that school or another nearby. This is a vanity article and should be removed.Adam Slack 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well written article detailing history of this 50+ year old school, hardly a "vanity" article, which is inapplicable (from a policy perspective) to schools in any event. Further, "notability" (or the lack thereof) is not and never has been a valid deletion criterion for schools.  42 elementary/primary schools have survived the AfD process in the past 2 months alone, with hundreds of similar schools surviving the process in the previous 2 year period.  While some of these elementary/primary schools resulted in "no consensus" closures, it is reasonable that a wikipedia reader would expect to find an article about this school when searching for it given the great perponderance of other elementary/primary school articles on wikipedia. --Nicodemus75 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there are no external sources given. The two links are to the schools website and the local education autority. I think schools can be included as you are not meant to be th primary author of an organisatio you are associated with. Even then the information is not verifiable, and it looks unlikely that any neutral Wikipaedian would want to improve an article about an obscure institution.Adam Slack 00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but ofsted is an external source. If the Government of the United Kingdom says the schools exists, it exists (as far as WP:V is concerned). This article is about a verifable school, period.--Nicodemus75 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth, schools of all shapes and sizes are notable. Bahn Mi 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Same with the local supermarket, but there is no article on that. Jaranda wat's sup 05:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also lets say someone made a school (got it credited ect) and it only had lets say 10 to 20 people? Would you still include that? This schoool only has 150 students, there are preschools in some areas that have more than that yet they are not included here either.  Aeon  Insane Ward  18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as advertisement and vanity. This is a private school and thus a private business, and I don't see any pressing reason ( a 50-year history isn't significant in the UK ) to allow them to advertise their services on Wikipedia. Incidentally, precedent isn't binding on AFD, and using the Schoolwatch page as an AFD scorecard page is wholly inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This article still amounts to vanity and a stub that cannot be expanded save with local trivia, when the advertising issue is laid aside. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a primary school, the point at which I draw my line. All the issues have been argued and argued, leaving this as my only argument. AdamBiswanger1 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, primary schools (especially those with such a low number of students) aren't notable unless they did something more than exist (and for longer than 50 years, seeing as this is the UK we're talking about). Barring that, since this is a private school, I will go as far to say that this fails WP:ADS. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable primary school, WP:SCHOOL is not policy Jaranda wat's sup 05:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the well reasoned arguments established at Schools/Arguments. Having reviewed the article, nothing within it is of a promotional tone, nor does it have the appearance of a vanity page, it is simply informational.  This school is notable, and Notability is not policy, it's an essay.  Silensor 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with that argument is that there are just as well reasoned arguments at Schools/Arguments, which makes citing that section useless. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a discussion. Silensor is linking to the arguments page to state his rationale for voting to keep the article without retyping the reasons out on each and every school AfD discussion (there are HUNDREDS each year, after all). It is not "useless" to cite one's reasons for voting a particular way.--Nicodemus75 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep established school and as such important to its local community, also the subject of a well-written article with multiple third-party sources. Kappa 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Schools are inherently notable per consensus reached @ This page -- Librarianofages 02:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion on that page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Said page is a user page, not a page where standards are formed. It is nothing but a list of AFD cases.  It is useless as evidence of past practice because it fails to distinguish between consensus keep and no consensus defaults to keep outcomes.  A more full explanation of the useless of that page can be found in this diff.    GRBerry 12:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no assertion of notability in the article. Primary school or elementary schools are also normally not kept, even by our excessively loose standard practices for keeping schools.  If there is no assertion of notability in the article, having an article violates the Not an indiscriminate collection of information rule of WP:NOT.  GRBerry 02:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Schools are inherently notable, per School Project. There is an organization of deletionists on Wikipedia that is out to delete all schools. Per School Project, this must be stopped. Capit 13:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This kind of accusation does little to make the Wikipedia project seem more encyclopedic. Consider for a moment not that there is a deletionist cabal out to get rid of all school articles, but instead that a group of clear-thinking editors feel that schools which are not demonstrably notable in and of themselves do not need their own article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete nn - vanity article Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per GRBerry. I have no problem keeping articles on schools, so long as that school has a demonstrable claim to notability. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Undecided - as it was I who wrote the article, I thought I'd add a few comments. Firstly, it's not a private school (not sure why that came up). Secondly, it was never intended to be recruitative; rather that it is difficult to find a central history of schools anywhere, and I have researched several; some of the older history info can be verified from the Victoria History series, so I can find a reference for that if that would make is saveable. Failing that, if consensus is that schools have to be of a certain size or notability, then what it that? And how broadly? It's notable locally since it has been threatened with closure on more than one occasion, and may well be again in the next 5-10 years. Does it need to be broader than that? Tafkam 19:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently, there isn't a consensus over school notability, hence the differing opinions here. Computerjoe 's talk 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding more verified information to the article about its local notability would make for a better evaluation. The article now seems to say that people cared, but not clearly enough to say if they cared about the school specifically or generally objected to the system's plan.  The general rule for all articles is that the article itself needs to provide reason for being kept.  GRBerry 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * At the risk of seeming stroppy, is there a reason, then, that this article has been selected for deletion? I notice that almost every Primary School in Bucks has a two-line stub article, as well as a category to collate them.
 * They may also be nominated. This just happened to be article I spotted ;) Computerjoe 's talk 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep around and around and around we go....  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 11:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Alkivar, you've been here much longer than I have. AFD is for discussion and consensus-building, not a vote or making sarcastic quips. Comments like the one above contribute nothing to the discussion. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That might be true, but I don't see what repeating yourself over and over and over and over again in AfD after AfD adds to the discussion or to consensus building either. It's not like there aren't HUNDREDS of AfDs where you can't read Alkivar's views. I think it is ridiculous to expect editors to cut/paste their opinions hundreds of times.--Nicodemus75 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: That does not make it appropriate to post deriding comments that show that the editor has no interest in working toward consensus about a subject, which is contrary to the spirit of AFD, and the Wikipedia project itself. Again, I say, AFD is not a vote and comments like this seem to have an underlying assumption that this is so. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do you seriously believe that 90% of those who vote to delete on this and all the other school AfDs are "working toward consensus"? Do you think that "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" actually have any respect whatsoever for the opinions of those who disagree with them? I can't see as how those who pile on with delete votes aren't treating these "discussions" as a vote, particularly in light of the fact that school articles are very, very rarely deleted through deletion processes on wikipedia. The fact is, that ALL attempts at consensus on this issue have utterly failed, and in fact, if anything the failure of WP:SCHOOL simply codified the polarized positions that exist on this contentious matter. There is no consensus on what to do with schools and trying discredit editors who have well-known views on the subject, expressed in literally hundreds of previous AfD discussions is quite frankly, a cheap shot. Further, "around and around we go" is hardly "deriding"--Nicodemus75 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What happened to assuming good faith of those who disagree with you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What happened to you assuming good faith? Your comment above claims that the author (and subsequent editors) of this article is engaged in advertising and writing a vanity article - hardly an assumption of good faith.--Nicodemus75 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel that it's a good-faith misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia isn't here to advertise businesses, and this article does little else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but that is hogwash. When an editor creates an article about a school of which there are literally tens of thousands of such articles on wikipedia as well several organized projects to create and improve articles about schools, it is not an assumption of good faith to then suggest that the editor was creating "advertising".  It is the opposite.  It is obvious that the editor in this case created the article on wikipedia after seeing many other school articles and wished to contribute information about - not to "advertise" this school.  Frankly, I find your lack of assumption of good faith with respect to the author and contributors to this article by suggesting that they are creating "advertising", offensive and uncivil. Your voting premise is faulty and malinformed in any case as this is a not a "private business".  The article clearly states that this was founded as a Church of England school.  In England, the Church of England is established.  The article goes on to make abundantly clear that school was later reorganized by the Local education authority. This school is funded by the state. Did you actually read the article before voting on it?--Nicodemus75 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One para intro, three para history. It's not exactly lauding the merits of the school, I admit, but announcing the existence of a business offering services to the public is an advertisement, unless that article serves some purpose other than announcing the availability of the services. This article fails to anything else, and, whether or not it was intended as an advertisement, it is an advertisement. My knowledge of English schools is limited. (Does this school actively recruit students, or simply accept students from a district? In the case of the latter, my argument that this is an advertisement would indeed be incorrect.) I went to find out more, then discovered that Education in England is horrribly uninformative and badly written; it's mostly bulleted lists. Perhaps your time would be better spent making that a useful, informative article? As for the rest of the articles, looks like there's a lot of work to do to clean them up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to read the link I cited, it would have explained to you how Local education authoritys work. Students are organized into these STATE SCHOOLS by the LEAs, the school does not solicit for students.  Perhaps your time would be better spent getting informed on a subject you are voting on and discussing before pronouncing that the subject is "a private school" and "a private business" which is clearly not the case. I hope the closing admin discounts your obviously and admittedly shoddily-informed comment.  Irrespective of your unfounded assertion and continued weak defense of same, "advertisement" is defined as "A publication produced in order to sell some commodity, service or similar." or "A commercial solicitation in a publication designed to sell some commodity, service or similar."  This article is neither of those things, particularly since no service is "sold" by this institution. This state-run school is not a business.--Nicodemus75 07:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The LEA article is unclear on whether students are recruited or assigned, as well. I was under the impression that private schools solicited students, as is my experience with both the American and Canadian educational systems. Consider my objection mooted, then (although the Education in England and Local Education Authority articles need a lot of love). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a private school.--Nicodemus75 10:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, you know what I mean. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That last bit, at the very least, implies that the objections and opinions of editors who disagree are meaningless and without worth to the project, which I find nonconducive to the environment needed to create an encyclopedia. And further, yes, I believe that many of the people who have voted delete above have an interest in consensus, particularly when it comes to this article. The claim that people who would argue to delete an article like this are "piling on votes" is similarly thoroughly unfounded. I have expressed in my vote the reason I think that the article is inappropriate to include, and I am entirely open to discussion on my position as far as this article is concerned. Further, I have respect for the differing opinions of other editors who disagree with me- I extend this effort toward other editors in the name of not detracting from what Wikipedia needs to work, and it is this expectation that led me to voice concerns over what Alkivar had to say. Lastly, the concerns expressed by A Man In Black, I must admit, concern me as well. A civil environment in which editors assume good faith is similarly vital to the project. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Imagine it was your own primary school, which is probably no more notable (I know mine isn't). How would you vote then? I know this isn't a very convincinag argument, but give it a thought anyway. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't think of any reason why my primary school would have an article on Wikipedia. Catchpole 20:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll vote delete if my primary school gets an article and gets AFD, they are not notable except for select cases Jaranda wat's sup 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Not encylopedic. Well written articles is not a reason for inclusion.  Vegaswikian 23:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a sense of notability here, I do not see how removing this is beneficial to the project.  Yamaguchi先生 02:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into West Green, Crawley (which is a stub in need of more information) or possibly a listing of schools. Doesn't seem notable unto itself. Dreadlocke


 * 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.