Talk:Lancaster Steiner School

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Schools Low‑importance This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tell us more ...Victuallers 14:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any proper third party sources for this school, I believe it should be a redirect. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This school is sufficiently notable, has a web site and so can be fixed. If you think the article should be deleted, then why not follow the normal process and nominate it for deletion? --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But having a website is not a criterion for notability, is it? Please bring some decent secondary sources to the article, or I will redirect it again. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before you redirect or otherwise delete an article, you really should get consensus from other editors. Out of courtesy, it would help to allow other editors time to respond. I have found several references that establish this school's notability, in my opinion, and I'm about to add them. Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! It's worth noting that the previous tag proposing a merge sat there for over three years without seeing any such addition of sources, but all's well that ends well and you deserve recognition for adding those sources. Just to be clear though, there is no policy that I know of requiring consensus before redirecting an article; WP:BOLD applies as it does to any other edit.--MarchOrDie (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]