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. W.marsh 18:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's Catholic Infant School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article does not assert notability of the school per WP:SCHOOL. None of the 36 links I've looked at tell me there's anything special about this school. Since this article is no more than a directory listing, I propose deletion. Kavadi carrier 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It meets the WP:SCHOOL Comprehensive coverage criterion 2, as it is is part of a series of similarly maintained articles related to education in Buckinghamshire. It should, therefore, remain. Scribble Monkey 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also fails to meet WP:NOTYETAGREEDBUTI'LLMENTIONITASIFITWEREGOSPEL. Last time I looked WP:SCHOOL did not look like becomming policy as it had failed to reach consensus!

Was I the one to first mention that WP:SCHOOL criteria should be applied? Scribble Monkey 10:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. An absolutely non-notable lower-grade elementary school. WP:SCHOOL has not passed and will never pass, and in NO OTHER GUIDELINES does it say that "this article is part of a series of articles, so it should stay." Inclusion of one article IN NO WAY implies inclusion of another article. If it can't stand on its own, it should be merged or deleted. -- Kicking222 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as NN. Edison 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination as not notable and having failed WP:SCHOOL. Xdenizen 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Note that WP:SCHOOL CC2 continues "...related to a specific school board, school district, or other notable organization"

Buckinghamshire County Council surely qualifies as such. Scribble Monkey 10:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All irrelevant. WP:SCHOOLS has no consensus behind it whatsoever (I could just as easily cite WP:SCHOOLS3- the new proposal). And of the material in WP:SCHOOLS- CC2 is one of the most controversial inclusion criteria. JoshuaZ 17:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. Unlike some of the posters here, I'm not a veteran of these debates, and am not aware of the history of the different proposals. I responded to WP:SCHOOLS because the article was originally tagged with a proposed deletion notice, which claimed that there was No assertion of this school's notability per WP:SCHOOLS, by Kavadi carrier. I added some information to the article, which Kavadi carrier then tagged with an AfD notice, which pointed here. His deletion proposal at the top of this page starts with "This article does not assert notability of the school per WP:SCHOOL". I humbly apologise for naively assuming that WP:SCHOOL had any relevance at all to this discussion. Scribble Monkey 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Primary schools with their own articles? Seriously, wtf. No notability whatsoever. --- RockMFR 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-->Merge I can't see why schools like this aren't detailed by geographic area, the entry as given doesn't afterall tell me much about the school and if this is all that is available it would be more useful if it were listed along with other schools in the area on one page.

Possibly, although the use of categories rather than lists almost encourages separate entries. Scribble Monkey 10:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Merge and Redirect Any useful information regarding the school should be merged into Bishop of Northampton, under whose auspices the school operates. The article has not progressed past the stub phase in a year as an article and does not seem to be a likely candidate for expansion, given that it serves students ages 4-7. Alansohn 05:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere appropriate per WP:SCHOOLS or keep. Kappa 06:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability, no notable alumni, no awards, no coverage beyond standard government reports. No independent coverage at all. at most one idependent source. JoshuaZ 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Government reports are independent. Kappa 06:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And indiscriminate. Kavadi carrier 06:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I'm not even convinced government reports are always idependent. Maybe you need to spend some time in the American South and look at how for example OSHA functions down there. In any event, I've modified my earlier statement to reflect the existence of the one source that goes along automatically with all schools. JoshuaZ 06:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JoshuaZ. >Radiant< 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or merge, if you can find an appropriate target, which the Bishop is not.) This is a verifiable, appropriate stub that's already been properly categorized. Unfocused 15:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JoshuaZ. I've categorised schoolstubs before now; in doing so I wasn't implying they should be kept. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it would be one thing if this had any real semblance of notability... but I cant make a valid argument to keep it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Joshua. Guettarda 06:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a bloody nursery school. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom , per JoshuaZ, per WP:SCHOOL, and per Kappa. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 15:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unremarkable infant school. Catchpole 21:42, 12 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.