Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheadle Hulme High School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheadle Hulme High School[edit]

Not really notable, the information isn't relevant or important. As an alumnus and contributor to this article I can tell you its not really important. Having it on Wikipedia is quite ridiculous. T. Moitie [talk] 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - as an alumnus and contributor to this article I can tell you it's a good article. How is the information not relevant or important? Having it on Wikipedia is not ridiculous. --Alex (talk here) 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Being a good article doesn't make it any more notable. What makes this school important? If Wikipedia had an article for every school in the UK, it would be ridiculous! T. Moitie [talk] 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ridiculous is a word you use a bit too freely. What would be wrong with it? If someone wants to take the time to write an article, and it follows the WP guidelines then why shouldn't there be one for every school? --Alex (talk here) 20:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is an encylopedia, Not a directory of all the schools. There is a proposed policy going through the stages of proposal at the moment, WP:SCHOOL. It says "Wikipedia articles about schools should show that there is, or that there is likely to be, sufficient coverage of that school to allow for the creation of a complete article." Where is there any verifiable information on any of those points? T. Moitie [talk] 20:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't go over these "stuck record" schools arguments yet again. The proper study of encyclopaedists is looking for, citing, reading, and evaluating sources. It is not the making of personal, subjective, judgements of importance. Please concentrate upon citing sources to show that this school satisfies the WP:SCHOOL criteria. The Ofsted report is one such non-trivial published work. What were the other non-trivial published works used to build the article? How can readers know that the school was, in fact, built in 1934, for example? Uncle G 20:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well there is the fact it is the only language college in Stockport "The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools." I'll try and find the site where it said the school was built in 1934. --Alex (talk here) 20:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whether being "the only language college in Stockport" differentiates it from other schools is your personal, subjective, judgement. I'm "the only Wikipedia editor named Uncle G". Please stop making subjective judgements of importance and concentrate upon citing sources. I ask once again: What were the other non-trivial published works used to build the article? How can readers know that the school was, in fact, built in 1934, for example? Uncle G 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Being the only language college in the LEA makes it unique. I've added a couple of sources. --Alex (talk here) 20:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, but does this high school have any important non-trivial history? Do you ever see this school in the news or reported as notably important. There are lots of different statuses each school has, and being a language college or a training school doesn't strike me as a terribly notable thing. T. Moitie [talk] 21:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Only in your personal, subjective, judgement. For the third time: Please stop making subjective judgements of importance and concentrate upon citing sources. What were the other non-trivial published works used to build the article? Uncle G 11:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The singular of "alumni" is "alumnus". Uncle G 20:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well writen and the information is relevant and imprortant, imo. Hello32020 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep comprehensive/secondary schools are all notable imo, primary schools possibly not so. --RMHED 20:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Also an alumnus. As T.Moitie, Article is irrelevant, unimportant. Ood 20:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • T. Moitie simply said it was "ridiculous" and "not really important". --Alex (talk here) 20:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, nitpicking... Ood 21:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well that's what he said. And it's a little suspicious how you, Ood suddenly come online when needed. Hmm indeed. --Alex (talk here) 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not at all suspicious. Me and him were having a discussion about this article before I listed it and we agreed that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. It is why I listed it. I didn't ask him to come on here specifically to vote. T. Moitie [talk] 21:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • We were infact discussing Wikipedia and this article on MSN Ood 23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - See WP:SCHOOL for the guidelines. T. Moitie [talk] 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I've read them. --Alex (talk here) 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alex9891, I didn't point that directly to you, it was a comment directed at everyone. Please don't take this AfD as a personal attack since you are the contributor, I certainly don't mean it to be. :) T. Moitie [talk] 21:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Its not a guideline, I apologise for asserting that it was. T. Moitie [talk] 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, high schools are generally notable. --Rory096 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, high schools are always considered notable otherwise we'd have to delete a lot of articles. I'm not sure but isn't Wikipedia trying to do a project to have more articles about schools right now? Nlsanand 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Schools is a proposal, not a guideline or policy. J Ditalk 21:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware of that, but the consensus there (see it's talk page) that the notability requirements should be even stricter than proposed. T. Moitie [talk] 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be the case, I haven't seen the talk page, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a proposed guideline, and as such should not be referred to as a guideline or policy as you have done previously. J Ditalk 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see, sorry about that. I've added a note after that other comment T. Moitie [talk] 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is customary for all real high schools. Gazpacho 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The school does currently meet WP:SCHOOL
    "2. The school has been or was in existance for over 50 years, due to the great likelihood of—but greater difficulty of uncovering—non-trivial historical coverage of that school"
    "The school was built in 1934, and was named Woods Lane Secondary Modern School."
  • Aren't all highschools defaulted to a keep provided that they have a sufficient amount of information? --Wafulz 22:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. There is no consensus over schools articles. Part of the problem is that a lot of editors employ "stuck record" arguments. You can see several "stuck record" arguments above. WP:SCHOOL is an attempt to break this pattern and to get editors back on track with concentrating upon sources, as encyclopaedists should.

      The primary notability criterion in WP:SCHOOL is that the school be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the school, which in fact gets one to roughly the same place, since these published works are neutral sources that can be used to build and to verify an article. (Works published by the school itself are not neutral.) The Ofsted report is one such published work. I've asked for another one three times, now. All that needs to be done is to cite one, and you will have the strongest of proper encyclopaedic arguments, multiple independent non-trivial sources discussing the subject, for keeping the article. Uncle G 11:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per any high school. Piccadilly 01:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. No reason for this deletion to be here. --Dennis The TIger 02:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that all US high schools are kept does not mean that the discussion of UK schools, where schools have far less importance to the local community (i.e. the highlight of Friday night isn't going to watch the school soccer team), should be subjected to the same standards. Catchpole 08:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standards to focus upon are WP:SCHOOL, in particular the first criterion therein, and the searching for, citing, reading, and evaluating of sources, instead of "stuck record" arguments where editors make personal, subjective, judgements of distinction and importance. Ofsted reports are non-trivial published works that are independent of the subjects. Uncle G 11:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My personal and subjective opinion of Ofsted reports are that they are generic and trivial. Catchpole 14:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools are generally kept, no matter how poorly or well written. In this case, sourced and written to a generally proper standard. Why is it not worthy of an article? Keep, definitely. – Chacor 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please do not confuse the British high school with American ones. This is but an elementary school of no particluar notability, and does not appear to pass WP:SCHOOL. Ohconfucius 07:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, this article is about a secondary school, and secondary school redirects to high school. J Ditalk 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no "elementary" schools in the UK with the name of "High School"; they are known as primary schools. If you'd read the article you'd know the age range of this school is 11-16, not elementary age and it specifically states it is a secondary school in the first sentence - which J Di points out redirects to high school. --Alex (talk here) 11:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In American terms, high school is generally grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 - that's 14 - 18. Not the same as the UK. T. Moitie [talk] 11:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still, I don't know where he got the idea it is an elementary school. --Alex (talk here) 17:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, most schools are notable, as is this. bbx 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I, too, believe that most high schools are notable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The article is a tad on the fluffy side, including material that only somebody attending the school would care about. It could use some judicious culling. — RJH (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I would have to agree with that, it can easily be cut down. Certainly doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted. --Alex (talk here) 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed some of the "fluffy" sections. --Alex (talk here) 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments, as well as these comments. Silensor 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to morons not learning from the previous 5000 examples... I now no longer care whether or not its a valid school to keep... from now on if its a school i will vote to keep it. That means preschools for furries get a keep from me now. I tried to be reasonable you people havent been.  ALKIVAR™ 00:40, 7 September 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheadle_Hulme_High_School&oldid=1137699382"