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 keep. One (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lane End Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Small primary school that does not assert any notability. Its exam results may be higher than average but that does not make it important or notable in any way. Very scant references as well - including to its own website, and to a home-made one. Majorly talk 08:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to town or county article - primary schools aren't usually notable. andy (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change into an article on Lane End, Cheadle Hulme. The article refers to there being articles on two adjacent districts of the town of Cheadle Hulme, but apparently not on Lane End. WP does not normally have articles on Primary schools because generally they are not of wide notability. The best solution is usually to merge these into an article on the place where they are (as andy). However the article could be turned around into a stub on Lane End with a section on the school as its only substantial section. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no such place as Lane End in Cheadle Hulme. It's the name of the school. Cheadle Hulme is not really a town, and doesn't have districts. The whole area is under one name. Majorly talk 12:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - rated as Grade 1 Outstanding by Ofsted; the highest rating possible for a UK school is a clear claim to notability. I will source this. TerriersFan (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete Ratings have been accepted as a criterion for primary school notability--but as I read last years report, 13% of all primary schools have been judged outstanding. That';s much too weak a criterion for notability for a class of things almost all of which are not notable. . DGG (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - but how many can you find where every criteria is also outstanding? TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Importance is not a content criterion. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not asserted though. And as for WP:V, its own website and someone's personal site are reliable sources? Majorly talk 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is performance coverage from BBC, Ofsted, and the UK Department for Children, Schools and Families. The "personal website" is the site of the Member of Parliament and are news stories. I believe the school website is reasonable for Verifiablity though not for NPOV. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm referring to cheadlehulme.net, not the MP's page. Just because something exists does not make it notable. Every single school in the country has an Ofsted report, and league table position. No notability is asserted = delete. Majorly talk 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:Notability is not a content policy; it is intended as a guideline to interpreting them. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course notability is asserted - it has been independently assessed as an outstanding school, not only overall but in every aspect of its work. This is a clear claim to notability. TerriersFan (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Outstanding performance is asserted for many primary schools. That does not make them all notable. The WP consenus has accepted that all High Schools are notable, but hitherto has balked at doing the same with every primary school. The usual answer is not to delete them, but to merge them into an article on their village town or locality. In this case there does not appear to be an article on Lane End yet. I therefore suggested above tha the present article should be moved to Lane End, Cheadle Hulme and restrcutured so that the primary school would be one of the topics covered. This was intended as a contructive suggestion to ensure that the standard answer that primary schools are generally NN could not be disapplied in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I generally support merging primary schools into their location and, indeed, generally merge at least one every day. However, the difference this time is that the outstanding performance has been independently assessed not only in respect of the overall assessment but highly unusually in respect of each component. Very few UK schools have such a high assessment (I only know of one other) and they merit their own page. TerriersFan (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I said above, there's no such place as Lane End. Majorly talk 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The reliable and verifiable sources already provided in the article support a claim of notability that most primary schools would be unable to make. I look forward to further expansion of this article and will reconsider my vote when this expansion is complete. Alansohn (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Terriersfan and doubleblue; rated as Grade 1 Outstanding in all categories by Ofsted. Ample sources to support content of article. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Per the references in the article, this school is not the average primary school.--Jmundo (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2009 (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.