Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. John and St. James

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 delete. Sandstein 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. John and St. James[edit]

Non notable community school--Адам12901 ^T/_C 14:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, it was in special measures and has been used as an example of how a school can get itself out of special measures (i will add more info when I have the source data), it is also one of only two CofE schools in Edmonton (the only one in Upper Edmonton ward). It has also won several awards.Tamatisk 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no different to any other primary school in Enfield. And that image is a clear copyvio (it even has the copyright notice on it for pity's sake) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is some content: the article talks about the way the schools pathways are arranged. Including this sort of material and nothing more important is an indication that the writer truly look for material, and could not find any. I encourage the ed. to use his ingenuity on a more substantial topic. DGG 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. The article is literate and intelligently put together and I note the originator's committment given above to continue developing it. It could do with some citations, particularly in the awards section. The link to the Ofsted report is welcome but we need to know more history, both in the sense of how old the school is etc and specifically on the issue of special measures we need to know why the school was is them (there was presumably an earlier Ofsted report that led to their imposition) as well as how it got out of them. Properly built on, this article would have value in terms of the local history of the area. BTLizard 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not wastepaper, either, nor does Wikipedia have any policies or guidelines declaring that articles get a free pass on WP:V (which this one fails) if they happen to be literate and well-written. Until and unless this subject is cited in reliable, independent, published sources, there are no valid grounds for retention. RGTraynor 14:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has been created less than a week and already contains interesting and encyclopedic material on an award winning school that shows notability. Sure it needs sourcing, but that applies to half the articles on here. As stated above, the creator is planning to expand the article and should be given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Bridgeplayer 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see that at all; there is nothing whatsoever in this article to indicate that this school is any different to any other London primary school. The only thing this article mentions that's in the least unusual is that it's slightly smaller than some other primaries (one class per year instead of two). I generally support high school inclusion as they have the potential to be focal points of the community, but (in the UK at least), primary schools are tiny by comparison and there are so many of them (57 in Enfield alone, and 2000 in London) that I can only see a case for listing those in some way out of the ordinary. Those "awards" are far less than they seem - the "Schools Achievement Award" has been won by 13800 different schools and 69% of schools are in the "Healthy Schools" scheme - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What iridescenti says. Eusebeus 11:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notibility shown as per responses above.--Dacium 22:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.