Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Munden 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Daniel Case 03:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Munden Primary School[edit]

Speedy delete The article makes no claim for notability for this school, nor is it implicit in the article Jack1956 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Change to Keep In view of the work done on the article I withdraw my nomination for deletion Jack1956 11:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has ref to DEFS website which is a secodary source as required by WP:ORG making it notable. A link to OFSTED report could be added for a further source. Keith D 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The information supporting a claim to notability should be cited in the article, surely? Apart from that, I'm not sure that the secondary source quoted is indicative of notability. Jack1956 21:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ORG says "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources." which is the case regardless of it been quoted or not. Keith D 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All schools will have OfSTED and DfES entries. These shouldn't be cited as prime sources of notability. EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elementary school with no evidence of notability shown. Saying that the DEFS statistics confer notability is like saying that a health inspector's report confers notability on a restaurant. Deor 22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most primary school included this one does not deserve in independant article but can be included in regional article.--JForget 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep Seems to be more correctly known as Little Munden Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School. Seems to be a lot of different sources under this name on Google. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 23:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved - the Ofsted report confirms this as the correct title. TerriersFan 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even using that name, I'm not getting anything from Google except directory listings and statistics on pupil performance, such as one might get for any elementary school. What's there that establishes notability or that could be used to expand the article? Deor 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. Just your average primary school Corpx 02:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless there's a regional article to merge it into. Schools are- by their nature- something of notable interest. If someone wants to find out about Schools in the area, or is researching previous students. It hasn't been mentioned in this article yet, but the School does have a significant history (it predates the whole concept of "elementary school" for example). And Herbert Gladstone, 1st Viscount Gladstone is buried in the adjoining church. No need to spend all this time deleting it when it could just be expanded. There's much better targets for AfD, at least the subject of this article is real, unlike some things on Wikipedia. Chriswiki 09:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC) (Original Editor)[reply]
Comment The article must be rated as it is, not as it might be. No claim to notability can be judged from the article. Being old doesn't necessarily make it notable [I'm old and I'm not notable]; nor does some one being buried in the church next door make the school notable Jack1956 10:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you live long enough eventually you will become notable :-) TerriersFan 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted. Just another school. Eusebeus 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I've now updated the article to include references and an indication as to its notability. There is no doubt plenty more which could be added given some extra time. The school has a very long history (it is nearly 200 years old) and was originally the only school in the whole parish. It is also located in a Grade II listed building, which indicates that it is a building of architectural importance. The OFTSED report doesn't confer notability in its own right as all schools in England and Wales are inspected but it could be used as a source to expand the article further. Dahliarose 11:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So it's the building that's notable, and not the school? OFSTEd reports can confer notability if, for example, the school was reported as being 'outstanding'. Is that the case here? Jack1956 12:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's both - listed building and a historic school. TerriersFan 23:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge, important part of the history of the village, and the subject of multiple nontrivial independent coverage. Kappa 12:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support Merge.Jack1956 12:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This school is nearly 180 years old, and that is old even by UK standards. Further, this is a Grade II Listed Building defined as 'buildings of special architectural or historic interest' which, in itself, confers some notability. There are sufficient sources available to provide scope for expansion. This is a useful addition to Wikipedia's coverage of historic buildings. TerriersFan 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - listed building, historic school. PamD 21:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The multiple sources added to the article and the age and notability of the building all contribute to establishing notability under the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 05:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dahliarose, TerriersFan and Alansohn. Xn4 06:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:34, 20 July 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.