Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kesgrave Hall School

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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kesgrave Hall School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This school web page should be deleted it does not meet the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) as listed in the WP:BEFORE page, this was a school who only about 150 boys in total ever attended, this page was written by former boys as a continuation of Indigo Jo / Matthew Yusuf Smith campaign to rubbish the school and staff, most of the text has now been removed by a moderator however this School should not have a web page and it should be deleted. Wlmmcf (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator is a single purpose account whose only edits to date are in connection with this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; per WP:NHS, secondary schools that can be verified to exist or have existed are automatically notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't go as far as Roscelese and say all verified secondary schools are automatically notable. However, there is a strong presumption in these cases that reliable sources exist, and established consensus favors keeping such articles in almost every case. Past vandalism of the article is not a legitimate reason to delete. That's why we monitor and revert vandalism instead of deleting vandalized articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I strongly disagree that all secondary schools deserve articles, but that seems to be community consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question : How is any of the stuff verified here ? where are the sources your own rules say should be quoted ? why do you want to host a page like this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlmmcf (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the nominators comments. I have no issues with voting as per uncited and limited notability even if it is against prior consensus - it already gets a small mention in the parent article - Kesgrave Hall#Shawe Manor - redirect there. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article gives no indication of why this school is notable, and cites no sources that could do so either. --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (or "Weak Merge"): Keep per above, but weak because it's a school that no longer exists. On that point, if the school no longer "exists", as such, but is the historical precursor to another school (Kesgrave_Hall#Shawe_Manor, which itself closed), then perhaps an option is to find the current incarnation of the school in the area and merge the information of Kesgrave Hall School (and Shawe Manor) into a history section for that school? ˜danjel[ talk | contribs ] 08:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that is there is no current incarnation of the school, it is now the site of a "4 Star Luxury Hotel and Bistro Restaurant" see http://www.milsomhotels.com/kesgrave/ it is also wrong to say that Kesgrave Hall School became Shawe Manor School as it did not, something that would be clear if the web page followed the rules of this encyclopedia and had sources. Wlmmcf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlmmcf (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per complete lack of sourcing and my own guidelines. While virtually all public secondary schools are notable, without evidence this academy is not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I usually unreservedly support the "all secondary schools are automatically notable" line, but this school was so tiny that's it's impossible to justify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Confusingly, Kesgrave Hall was in use as a private boarding school as early as 1874. That source doesn't name the school, but it might very well have gone by the name "Kesgrave Hall School" at the time, for obvious reasons. I'm not clear that the various different managements, and even owners, involved over the centuries made these completely different enterprises; these establishments were all private boys' boarding schools in the same physical building, and quite probably under the same name. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I should read properly before commenting; our article Kesgrave Hall says that in 1860 it was indeed called "Kesgrave Hall School". However the building had other uses in between, so actually what we have here is, I suppose, two (at least) establishments entitled Kesgrave Hall School, both private boys' boarding schools and both in the same building at different times. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few free images of the school, including when it was open, by a former pupil, so I'm going to invite them to comment (with suitable caveats about not a vote etc) in case they can point out additional reliable sources or other information of relevance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it, the earlier version of the school from the 1800s is probably notable, as all of the references i'm finding on the name is for the old one. Maybe this article should be rewritten to be about the non-contemporary one? Silver seren^C 15:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what are you finding? I didn't see much more about the 1800s school than the 1900s school; the former had some gazetteers and similar that mentioned its existence and sometimes the name of the headmaster, plus a couple of other refs that were just mentions of alumni; the latter had some alumni mentions, several independent reliable sources about a school employee convicted of crimes, and a few basic entries in publications like "Which School?" Mentions of people being "from Kesgrave Hall" or "of Kesgrave Hall" in the 1800s are mostly likely to relate to people that owned or lived in the building, or were from the surrounding area, not referring to the school. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The problem is likely to be that there are local books about the school, considering how long the history of the Hall is there's likely multiple books about it's entire history including the schools, but we don't have access to them here. Silver seren^C 16:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added some sourced content and there is more available to meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that is coatracking of a minor sexual assault to claim notability of a school. Its a not notable sexual assault and a not notable school. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources about the school that I found was of the sexual assault, which isn't notable as sexual assaults in schools are a regular occurence, other than that there isn't much notability other than the former school is located in a notable building. WP:V is a concern here and not having reliable sources other than the assault, that issue trumps WP:NHS, as NHS is a guideline and WP:V is policy. Merge to the building is another solution but please not the sexual assault content as that is a WP:BLP violation, as a very minor crime that is more harmful to the subject/subject involved and has no lasting notability. Secret ^account 02:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The sexual abuse reporting contains only passing references to the school, rather than in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too found only the sexual assault case and some extremely passing book references. I'm wondering where decent sources concerning the school actually are to be found. Mangoe (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've put some effort into looking at the available information in secondary sources (as noted above), and, despite it being rather thin, I think there is enough to establish notability for the topic. It's true that this was a small secondary school that was in operation for a relatively short period of time, but it should be noted that as a boarding school, its size is not exactly proportional to its importance. A boarding school is a complete environment 24x7 for its pupils, whereas an ordinary school is merely 6x5 - a huge difference. As has been noted by others elsewhere, an ordinary secondary school is not really very remarkable - but this school was clearly far from ordinary, and the mentions in secondary sources reflect that. I do appreciate that there are BLP concerns over the continued existence of this article (which is what prompted the nomination and some of the !votes, I think), and of course I would support removal of BLP-infringing material. However, it is emphatically not reasonable to describe the coverage in reliable secondary sources as "the sexual assault" and "a minor sexual assault" as some !voters above have done. The sexual assaults were repeated against the same victim, and also repeated against multiple victims, as is clear from the sources cited. Unpleasant as it may be, that is significant coverage when the school is so small and its existence so short. You can't have it both ways! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough sourced material to keep this article, or at least to be worth merging to some alternative target (article on the Hall itself?) TheGrappler (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Kesgrave Hall. The school that subsequently used the building redirects to the artifle on the hall, and I do not see why this one should be different. Deletion should be out of the question, but as one of a sequence of schools using the same premises, it fail to see why it needs an article of its own when predecessors and successors do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per standard practice for secondary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2011 (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.