Talk:Langley Hall Primary Academy

merge

Not sure that this article meets the notability requirements. It should probably be merged to Slough#Education. Fmph (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that the notability of primary schools has been questioned. However, I felt that this one was notable because it was one of the first Free Schools and was established in a listed building with a chequered history.

I have no direct connection with the school and have not been inside the building for many years. As it happens, I came to the subject accidentally because I watch Langley, Berkshire, where I was born. Shortly after I had removed some nonsense about Langley Hall, I found my brief entry had been swamped by some badly written, unsourced material which had been posted anonymously. I had no response from the IP address, but then someone writing a history of Langley Hall for the school asked me where I had found the contentious material. I had to point out that I had not written it, but was the person who had criticized it. In the end we decided to take down most of it.

Actually, I had been wondering whether it might be a good idea to convert this into an article on Langley Hall when more information becomes available. LynwoodF (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that this article should be merged as there is already sufficient content for a standalone article. The article has an interesting history and there will be many more references to be found in other sources to ensure that it easily passes the required standards for WP:N. School articles are judged on their individual merits and the type of school makes no difference to the notability of the article. There should be a listing for the school on the Images of England website: http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk. Dahliarose (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be an early free school, but I'm not convinced that gives it notability. There is quite a bit of local coverage, but not sure that local newspapers really count as authoritative sources. There was a recent discussion on this (at WP:PUMP I think) where I think the consensus was that local sources alone do not confer notability. But I'm willing to be proved wrong on that. Personally, I would have been inclined to develop an enhanced Education section in Langley. Fmph (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with the status of school. For an article to be notable it must have non-trial coverage in multiple reliable sources. There was no consensus in the recent discussion that those sources had to be local. There is no reason to presume that local newspapers would be any less reliable than national ones. Indeed, for local subjects local newspapers are much more reliable sources as the writers have local knowledge. In any case, as this is a listed building and was at one time the home of Bomber Command there will no doubt be many other references in books and journals. This article as it stands clearly already surpasses the requirements for WP:N, and it makes no sense to merge it with the very brief existing article on Langley. I think the merge tag really should be removed. It is inappropriate to place a tag on an article the very instant it has been created before the article has had time to develop. It's actually the building and the history that is notable here rather than the school, but as the building is currently used a school it seems to me to make more sense to name the article after the school. Dahliarose (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Langley Hall Primary Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616142034/http://www.slough.gov.uk/documents/app5.pdf to http://www.slough.gov.uk/documents/app5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)