Well it seems verifiable, and not limited to original research, particularly with this report of it by the BBC: [1]. It isn't really written in the style of vanity. The BBC report lists it as 'Chase Bridge Primary School' so perhaps a redirect to there. Here's some more info: [2], and PDF reports are definitely professional looking: [3], and it's even listed here as a school: Twickenham#Infants, where other schools already have their own articles, including another infant school, Orleans Infants School. Well from what I've gathered I see no reason to delete it, I am also curious as to User:Dcarrano's reason for a change of opinon? Thanks, Seeaxid00:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, we don't normally use the "primary"/"secondary" school terminology as far as I know. I thought for whatever reason it was more like what we here would call a "high school," although even then I jumped the gun since I don't think every high school should be included.Dcarrano 00:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The primary/secondary terminology is sort of retained in the term post-secondary (to refer to anything after high school). At least, it was in my high school. Interesting, if not particularly relevant. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We call it primary, secondary then tertiary education, tertiary having the same meaning you had specified for post-secondary. Seeaxid05:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone bothers to at least try to add some material explaining why it is notable or interesting. (I figure that if the original writer doesn't care enough and the VfD process doesn't shake anything out, it's unlikely that it will ever be expanded.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC) (I'm now removing my vote since it's been expanded. Move to Chase Bridge Primary School is fine. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Just to clarify: move and redirect to Chase Bridge Primary School. Notability is not a policy. I think the following web site moreover affirms that the school is also refered to as: Chase Bridge alone: [4], as is indicated by only those words being bolded, as opposed to say, Carlisle Infant School, where that entire sentence is bolded.
There's absolutely no sense in deleting valid information just because it's not "interesting", how subjective's that. If "it's unlikely that it will ever be expanded", then merge it with Twickenham, rather than pointlessly removing useful information.
Lack of notability is a valid de facto reason for deletion. (By which I mean is that it's used by so many people that it doesn't really matter if it's policy or not.) Personally, I feel that a school article should at least make a half-hearted effort to explain why anyone should care, since they tend to be of interest to only a very small community (i.e. people who went there or whose children may go there). As long as there is some effort made along these lines, I'm willing to opt on the side of inclusion and let it be. This is my personal choice and you are welcome to disagree. But in light of your expansion I'm removing my delete vote. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Lack of notability is a valid de facto reason for deletion." If it isn't policy or guideline, or anything definitive, then it defies logic to state it alone as a reason for deletion, were it policy one could argue, and come to concensus to alter the policy. As there is no place to change the policy, simply stating it as definitive itself, giving no logical basis to support it (which a policy page would act as) it is simply irrational. [annex: this comment is essentially based on the contraversial nature of deletion in regards to schools, and that for most other general topics there notability guidlines at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents as you may well know]
You had also said: "I feel that a school article should at least make a half-hearted effort to explain why anyone should care,", now let me quote Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments: "Those who advocate the deletion of schools sometimes use an argument to the effect that a school that doesn't have some special attribute--apart from being an institution of learning--has no identity and shouldn't be in Wikipedia.
Part of the point of Wikipedia:Schools is that there is not a clear consensus on what should be done ("It's been done, and we should all agree to disagree."). Often there turns out to be lack of consensus to delete, which qualifies as consensus to keep only by default. I am familiar with all of the arguments. (I remember when most of them originated.) I judge each school article on its individual merits and I intend to keep doing so. The beauty of the system is that we are free to disagree with one another on this. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, this page is mentioned as one of threee (I believe) infant schools at the Twickenham article, so it seems obviously that it is a significant infant school within Twickenham (although probably not outside of it and perhaps not inside if Twickenham is actually a very, very small town), so it wouldn't bother me too much if relevant information was shifted to the Twickenham article. Seeaxid11:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reasonably good example of how to write an article about a British school. Good use is made of the OFSTED report and the external links section is well stocked. The article should of course be moved to the correct name, but that's not a decision I think we need discuss here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk06:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
