Deletion of Lesmahagow High School

Comment: I have added a bit more to the article. There is certainly content and sources there which I would remove as run of the mill, but that does not require deletion of the article. I agree that the HMI Inspection report is an independent, reliable and significant source. We don't have it referenced directly but the action plan shows that it exists. The local history book, ''At the Crossroads of Time'', has some decent coverage. I think that there are very likely to be print sources which cover the school in some detail. There is a lot we don't know from online sources - for instance, its date of establishment (it could be a development of to the eighteeth-century school referenced https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=blM5AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Lesmahagow+School%22&dq=%22Lesmahagow+School%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq_caXh4PuAhUAUBUIHZ0hDvkQ6AEwCHoECAcQAg here in an article about William Smellie (obstetrician)); but it's a school of importance to the community over a long period of time, and with at least four notable ex-pupils, so I think  applies. I did find some early twentieth-c local newspaper reports of the appointment of headteachers of the school, which I think is not trivial in the way that fun runs would be - I haven't added links to those because, without a clearer timeline of the history of the school, I think throwing in a ref to eg the appointment of a head in 1918 would just be confusing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOSSIBLE)

Comment: I waited until now to cast my !vote. There have been tremendous improvements to the article since this article was first nominated for deletion. I do not think this article would have been nominated if the article was published in this state. The sources in Scottish Daily Record alone seem to be enough for the article to satisfy . However, most of the other sources do not, because they are not |independent (the Facebook source is local) or reliable (the demolition page looks self-published). I'm unsure as to whether the HMI report is independent though. Regardless, this school is notable enough for inclusion IMO, but barely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INDEPENDENT)

Comment: Yes the school exists, yes the references support what is in the article. But the hurdle here is  and  and there is nothing to make this school any more notable then most of the schools of the world.  While the keep arguments are nice, they do not show that the school meets Wikipedia notability requirements
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSCHOOL||WP:ORG)

Comment: With |ATD of '''Merge''' to town or county article (see below). Fails Wikipedia:ORG|ORG and Wikipedia:GNG|GNG. Just a non-notable school. www.educationbase.co.uk, is NOT independent. Aside from flowery words the "ABOUT US" link was written by the school and contains words like "Although we" and "our pupils". Another source is about a high-jacked Facebook page, a link to the student handbook, a "Parent-and-Pupil-Booklet", and a South Lanarkshire Council published "Follow-through report". One ''Daily Record'' reports on a Hamilton Advertiser’s reporter and photographer visiting the school for career day. Another is a report on "elections of school captains and vice captains". These sources, while acceptable for article content, do not advance notability. If this were true then |common news reporting types of sources would mean that every high school, over 24,000 in the U.S., over 300 in Scotland, over 4,000 in England, almost 14,000 in China, and an untold number the world over, would qualify for an article. If this is not the actual intent it would be the unintended consequence
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: re|Jeepday}}. Local papers write about local schools, that coverage trivial is normally trivial. I have no time for concerts or fun runs. A statutory notice of planning application would not be trivial- if the paper employed real reporters and wasn't just an advertising rag, and even then I would expect a fair amount of focused copy. We are not talking about newspapers here. The level of detail needed to fulfil WP:GNG is far lower than that needed to justify a reference.  is remarkably broad! The existence of government funding guarentees that published reports by a third party exist. But you mention the two part  paragraph beneath it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIN||WP:ORGSIG)

Comment: In addition to {{U|ClemRutter}}'s  additions, including ''Daily Record (Scotland)'' articles and the HMI "Follow-through report - Lesmahagow High School", a resource that is secondary, not primary. It is required by the Scottish Qualifications Authority, part of Scotland's highly regarded universal public education system, different from those in the other countries of the United Kingdom. Such reports by national oversight agencies are significnt, substantial "reliable, independent, and secondary sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: re|ClemRutter}} per  "''Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.''" it would seem that you believe the coverage is not trivial, and that is fine.  That is why we have the Afd process, we all express our views on how things apply.  When you say "''There is nothing in the  and  that says that a school has to be more notable than any other''" I think you are missing SIG "''No inherent notability''" Local papers write about local schools, that is what makes the coverage trivial and non notable in my opinion. You see it differently and that is fine
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:NSCHOOL||WP:ORG||WP:ORGSIG)

Comment: There is nothing in the  and  that says that a school has to be more notable than any other. Wikipedia uses the word '''notable''' to refer the quality of its reference not in the way it is used in conversation- it doesn't have to be famous, or have notoriety.  Following each of those guidelines (which are shortcuts to the same document), you are taken to  which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSCHOOL||WP:ORG||WP:GNG)

Comment: I have added merge as an  per  that others and the closer might consider
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

Comment: although after doing quite a bit of editing on this, then looking back to the original edits and seeing what a premature move of content into article space took place, I can see why the article was nominated. The mentions of :Daily Record (Scotland) articles as sources are not strictly correct- The Daily Record website hosts content from multiple local papers- at least two of the references used in this article appear to be from the :Hamilton Advertiser. But this coverage does appear to go beyond trivial mention and thus establish that the subject meets the relatively low bar of significance accepted for the schools, via 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:ORG)

Comment: Timothy- could you please study what I posted above-    - all was covered by https://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/info/200190/our_secondary_schools/838/lesmahagow_high_school www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk,  Deletions of UK schools ''rarely'' succeed because the existence of independant inspections/reports (by law). The phrase 'run of the mill' indicates that a lack of understanding of the subject area. We have many area in Wikipedia that are tedious to many- but we just don't try editibng there
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IS||WP:RS||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not relieve similar articles from notability guidelines; that other pages also lack notability is not a reason to keep. Three of the sourced are not  and cannot establish notability. The remaining three are about a construction project (practically every school has construction), an article about a student that went to the school that got into Oxford (notability is not inherited, does not address the subject directly and in depth per ), and an article about a Career Week event. This is a good school, but that isn't a criteria for an article. &nbsp;&nbsp;//&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IS||WP:SIGCOV)