Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashtree Primary School (3rd nomination)

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't sleep, clown will eat me 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtree Primary School (3rd nomination)[edit]

This is a strange one--I am not sure if this should be considered the second or third nomination. This article was kept following a VfD in June of 2005, here, and was concurrently on VfD for most of the year 2005, here, resulting in no consensus, and has not improved since. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence, and the lack of recent edits strongly suggests that it never will. Puerto De La Cruz 18:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC) — Puerto De La Cruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC) — Puerto De La Cruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Also, every school recieves one of those reports, so that doesn't help the article. TJ Spyke 21:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets content policies (e.g. verifiable) and is a very good article. Contrary to what the nominator stated, there are multiple non-trivial published works cited in the article so the article patently does meet WP:SCHOOL. No evidence presented to indicate that the outcomes of the two previous AfDs were incorrect. JYolkowski // talk 23:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see three sources provided. One is the school's own site, which isn't third-party. The Hertfordshire site appears to be a directory listing. The Ofsted report is something that they do on every school. You could make the same argument for non-notable buildings by pointing out that they have building inspection reports. Puerto De La Cruz 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that OFSTED reports are done on every school doesn't make them trivial as a reference. In fact, they are a great source of information to expand the article. Regardless of whether you believe that this article meets or doesn't meet WP:SCHOOL (I think it does), it patently meets our content policies. JYolkowski // talk 15:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, verifiable and notable qua school. This delete-schools push has long since passed the point of absurdity. -- Visviva 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry, Visviva, but I didn't realize that arguing for what I believe in- in a rational manner, and without hurting anyone- was absurd. Please excuse me, and please mind WP:NPA. I'd much rather believe in something than believe in nothing, and the only thing that would be absurd would be caring whether you agreed with my belief or not. -- Kicking222 04:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A little touchy, aren't we? I don't understand how anything I said could possibly be regarded as a personal attack, least of all against someone who did not even join the discussion until after my comment was posted. But I also don't understand why we would be expected to be anything but annoyed at being called back here for the third time to debate this trivial issue. As far as I can tell, no new arguments have been raised; there is, therefore, no reason to dig up a horse that has already been killed and buried twice. When there is so much constructive work that needs to be done, and so much destructive content that actually needs to be deleted, why must we continue to waste our collective energies on this silliness? Signing off, -- Visviva 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - For a personal attack to exist, it must be personal, I see no such attack. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Puerto's nom and comment above. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. -- Kicking222 04:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The school is verifiable, in that many organizations have gathered statistics on them. However, I cannot see anything but statistics, not so much as a mention of an opinion in a forum. Please show me anything that may change my mind. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be verifiable, but so is the Quickie Mart on the corner. Definitely not notable. D e nni ☯ 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Denni D, and we really have only the Ofsted report as verifiable (if that) so we don't have multiple non-trivial sources even if you accept OFSTED reports are non-trivial. JoshuaZ 23:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of encyclopedic notability. No non-routine coverage from independent sources to show that anyone else considers it notable. No more notable than the local Marks & Spencer. GRBerry 19:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - having an OFSTED report merely proves a school's existence. It is not reason to keep an article about a school. The content appears to be a summary of the contents of the OFSTED report. Ohconfucius 04:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:V and WP:N as well as WP:SCHOOL. Bad faith nomination by a vandal. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Er, what evidence do you have that the user is a "vandal"? The behavior while distasteful seems to be WP:SOCK compliant. JoshuaZ 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - if you endorse this use of sockpuppet that is your conscience not mine Yuckfoo 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Why don't you actually read WP:SOCK? There are in fact many circumstances where there is nothing wrong with using socks. JoshuaZ 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Evidenced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cao Yang Middle School (2nd nomination), this nomination is clearly being made in bad faith by a single purposed account. The actual article is better than 99% of everything else on Wikipedia, it has five independently verifiable sources, meeting WP:V, and meets the bastardized WP:SCHOOLS guideline as well. Silensor 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a speedy keep candidate. --Core desat 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Primary school. Herostratus 14:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has hardly changed since the last very strange AFD, and despite the prose, there is nothing here that indicatesnotability. --Core desat 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now? — RJH (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentPrevious AfD was over a year ago. This hardly constitutes an example of repeating nominations until one succeeds. JoshuaZ 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor, meets several criteria within the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 22:19, 14 November 2006
Keep, large school, good article. bbx 22:32, 14 November 2006 (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.