Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourne Westfield Primary 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 merge to Bourne, Lincolnshire as the rough consensus indicates. I will be able to userfy upon request. –MuZemike 21:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bourne Westfield Primary School[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable UK primary (elementary ) school - primary schools, other than for very exceptional reasons are not de facto notable. Wikipedia is not a one-line directory for schools. Deletion is requested per standard procedure. UK schools do not have a school district to merge to. Kudpung (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply On the discussion page I said 'I am puzzled by the proposal for deletion. Why pick on this one and not, for example, Walton Girls High School or Bubwith Community Primary School or Woodside Primary School - or, for that matter, Lincoln Primary School or Fuhua Primary School. No such objection has been raised for the members of Category: Primary schools in London.' The reply makes it very clear that other people consider Notability to mean something similar to Fame, and hence have defined Primary schools as non-notable. My argument about completeness has been brushed aside, and the other pages are regarded as an aberation. Ho hum.

Fine. I am beginning to loose interest in contributing to WP because of this sort of 'My opinons matter more than yours' attitude among people who do not contribute original articles but bitch and moan about those created by poor sods like me at the bottom of their imaginary tree. I would only ask, in the interests of consistency, why these attacks are not carried out more consistently and more widely. The same arguements could be applied to senior schools, to the mass of entries about roads and highways, and the tens of thousands of Popular music LPs, TV episodes and comic book references. I thought the biggest advantage of WP was to help people to understand the world around them, but for those of us unfortunate enough to live in unremarkable places that is obviously not good enough.

I really don't care. It's only a web site. Delete away, the school will still be there. I hope you enjoy what you have helped created. --Brunnian (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we're coming after you. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In fact the article should preferably have been tagged for speedy deletion. 'Other people' do not have different standards. The policy concerning the non notability of primary schools was reached by consensus. It is possible that some schools have slipped through the net. The creator was already informed of the 'Other stuff' policy on the article talk page in response to their PROD objection. Our thanks go to them for pointing out other primary schools that we need to review. --Kudpung (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have just seen this article and discussion for the first time today, I take your various points, and have had little time to work on the article to improve it. However I've done what I can in the short time I've had as you can see from the article's history tab. There is notability to be found, and much further research to do. As from today, the school has voiced to me its approval of this attempt to save the article, and is in the process of researching citations for matters of notability, history and the like. A photograph of the school or its site is being organised. There is much to do, including research on the architecture via Lincolnshire planning department, so I have added a stub template and an Under Construction template, as you can see. There is now a small team of us working hard on this subject, so please be kind enough to give us time to turn the article into one that is acceptable to Wikipedia. It is also worth making the point that before the article existed there was already a red link for this school on the Westfield School disambiguation page, and I have linked this with the article using a redirect - so Wikipedia already contained an indication that such an article was required. As you see, I'm not interested in personal and political matters; just in seeing that Wikipedia maintains good and appropriate articles. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References do not make notability, they confirm it. Oftsted 'outstanding' is not an award. It is simply part of the school inspector's grading system (Grade 1), and is a commonplace assessment. There is nothing about it that confers particular notability for a school. The same applies to the other 'awards' listed. To be notable, a school must be either very old (such as one of the oldest established schools in the country), etc., or be of exceptional architectonic value (Grade I or Grade 2 listed buildings, etc), or designed by a very famous architect, or or have won a major national or international academic or sporting award, or have educated a number of very prominent people (top level politicians, Nobel Prize winners, Booker Prize winners, Olympic Gold medalists. There is nothing w e have researched that asserts the notability of this school for an encyclopedic entry. The article is now also subject to Conflict of Interest. See WP:COI. --Kudpung (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no conflict of interest and I have removed the template for that. You misunderstood my comment above - or perhaps I did not specify the situation clearly. To be more specific, I emailed the school with a brief list of questions, in order to elicit any information which could be used in the article. They sent me a list of three of the awards, including the Ofsted one. At the time of writing the above paragraph, I had asked them to provide citations, but they did not, so I found all the citations myself. All of the three items which they sent me, I then found independently online, including one item on the school website. They have only sent me that one email, and I cannot be sure that they will send any more. I shall ring the council planning department to find out the identity of the original architect - hardly an example of inappropriate collusion, especially as most council planning departments in the UK have destroyed most of their archives, and the telephone in most council offices (in my experience) is usually answered by a young person with a short history of employment, no training and no interest in local history. Getting historical information from a council is like getting blood out of stone. I do not live in Lincolnshire, I have never visited Bourne (the town where the school is) and I do not personally know any local residents, past or present. Regarding notability, this is only my first day of research, and I have only been free for a couple of hours today to begin that research. It is too early to decide that research cannot discover any notability for the article. --Storye book (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is requested per standard procedure. That standard procedure is to merge any primary school information to its US or Canadian school district article. The recommedation on UK primary schools is to merge the details about them to the appropriate article about the location. (vilage, town, city, etc.). Unless the school building is Grade I or Grade II listed, or has won an award for its design, or was designed by a notable architect, the school will probably not be able to assert notability for architectural reasons. The school was first established in 1963; it is therefore unlikely to be notable for its age or long standing revered reputation over centuries. Wkipedia does have policies and guidelenes for article creation, and it is highly reccommend that editors of school related pages be familiar with WP:SPIP, WP:NOBILITY, WP:ROTM, and WP:AFDP#Education. A link on a disambiguation page is not an indiction that an article is required or notable.--Kudpung (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These links are largely irrelevant as they are either essays with no special standing or are just plain irrelevant like WP:SPIP. The relevant policies here are WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a summary to Bourne, Lincolnshire. The explanation of "Westfield" as related to 3-course medieval agricultural rotation is NN and should be omitted as extraneous to the subject. As Kudpung has said, this is usually the best solution for lcoal primary schools, churches, village halls, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no objection to a merge if the article is still not notable after reconstruction is completed, but would like to question some other points. (1) I don't know what you mean by "NN". Please explain or provide a link. (2) Westfield is an archaeological site consisting of three fields. Crop rotation is a practice, and has been mentioned here to explain the site. The school is built on an archaeological site which was cited as a possible indication of notability. (3) Please note that the article currently has a construction notice, and all my current edits are unfinished contributions to ongoing research and re-construction of the article. The point of the construction notice, while of course encouraging editorial contributions, is to show that ongoing edits are in process, and to indicate that deletion and criticism of those ongoing edits are inappropriate until those edits are completed. Completion of research and reconstruction of the article will be indicated when the construction notice is removed. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge unless something substantial is dug up about the actual school, and Userfy if someone wants to really really try looking for sufficient sources. GNews suggests there isn't nearly enough third-party coverage to justify a stand-alone article, and that's what I'm going on until someone shows evidence otherwise. This is what is done for most primary schools. Debatable association with a possibly notable subject does not equal notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a bronze medal for the cook in the school canteen does not a notable institution make. Very good, substantial references on this establishment's academic prowess are required in order to establish notability. Unfortunately, an 'under construction' tag does not have the delaying feature of a CSD 'HangOn' tag. Underconstruction is just to help avoid edit conflicts (that's what happens when two or more editors try to upload an edit at the same time). --Kudpung (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you decide to userfy, I suggest that you userfy it to the creator's userpage or subpage (i.e. Brunnian's), and not to my own. There is still the possibility that he/she could return, and out of respect for his/her work I have no wish to take responsibility for the article from him/her. Brunnian will then at least be able to merge the material into the Bourne, Lincolnshire article without risk of total deletion, and at least some of his/her hard work will be saved. Meanwhile the next stage in my research on the article will have to be continued next week, because some of this has to be done in writing, and a response has been promised for next week. Proper research takes longer than zapping articles, my friends.--Storye book (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Update: I forgot to add that if you do userfy the article to Brunnian's userpage, please don't delete the information about the archaeological site. Brunnian is one of Wikipedia's current greatest experts on this aspect of lost settlements, and is better able to research it and judge its validity than many of us (and certainly better able than myself). Thanks for your kind consideration of this matter.--Storye book (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is about a school and should be centred on its academic history. Tens of thousands of entire cities have been built on the remains of some historical or archeological sites. The article will not accrue notability by shifting the focus to any non academic aspects of the subject.Kudpung (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the section on the site. The archaeology and agricultural environment affect the primary curriculum, so that the staff and pupils are aware of these aspect of the site, and learn from it. This is how most UK primary schools work. Learn from what is around you, and relate it to the larger world view. It is standard practice to see site and environment as important academically, whether as a starting point or as a specific study. Since in this case the site is incorporated in the school's name, and the school's interest in Lincolnshire horticulture and agriculture has resulted in the school specialising in gardening clubs and orchard work, the site is both relevant and notable in this case.

However, whatever the consensus and outcome of this discussion, it would be wasteful to delete this research on the subject of the site which is relevant to the article on Bourne at any rate. If you do eventually decide to delete, please userfy the information about the site and building to Brunnian's userpage so that all this hard work is not wasted. It can then be merged into the Bourne article. Too much valuable hard work on research is wasted by blanket deletion on Wikipedia without saving the research somewhere, and too many academics have given up editing on Wiki for this reason. I'm sure I can trust you to retain a record of this research on Wiki in some way or another.--Storye book (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The statement 'This is how most UK primary schools work.' clearly infers that this is a run of the mill occurence and that although pupils are encouraged to take an interest in their local history, it is neither a core National Curriculum subject nor does it lend notability to the school. The Wikpedia is not destined to become a directory of all 26,000 elementary schools in the UK, and our current policy should not be ignored in order to accommodate the wishes, however much in Good Faith, of one or two editors. There have been masssive debates over this issue in the past that have ended in consensus for the present guidelines. I am certainly not opposed to a merge to an article about the locality. --Kudpung (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect or Merge to the best localtity article. Wikipedia is not a directory. Abductive (reasoning) 04:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge (selectively merge) to Bourne, Lincolnshire. Appears to be a typical primary school, and the consensus of numerous past AFDs has been to merge them to the article on the locality or school district. similar articles which have not been exposed yet to AFD is not a good argument for keeping this one. Edison (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or userfy but don't delete environmental subject matter from Wiki: If there is going to be a deletion, then I am happy with either (1) a merge to the Bourne, Lincolnshire article or (2) a userfy to Brunnian's userpage or subpage (Brunnian being the creator of the article).

As Kudpung well knows, I support Wikipedia's rules and I am happy with Kudpung's interpretation of them as related above. My part in this has been merely to continue to research and edit the article during the discussion in order to find out whether the article fits the "exceptional notability" loophole for non-deletion, or whether it doesn't. This process is in accordance with Wiki rules. It's up to the consensus to decide the answer to that, and not to me. So please don't imagine that you are in an us-and-them discussion in which "one or two people" are fighting to keep the article and break Wiki rules. There is no evidence, so far, of that. My one reservation about deleting or merging is that valuable research will be lost to Wikipedia in the process. This is why I have asked that whoever does the deleting or merging takes care that all of the environmental content and citations are safely copied somewhere on Wikipedia, and lets us know where it is. I hope my comments will now put an end to any distracting misunderstandings, and we can get on with our job of supporting Wikipedia and quickly finding a solution to this discussion.--Storye book (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to be coming along nicely with plenty of good sources which testify to the topic's notability. It is our editing policy to retain such good work and to improve it further. Deletion would be contrary to this policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets the WP:GNG guidlines of "receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" by the references in the article. Keith D (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2010 (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.