Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devonshire House Preparatory 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 keep. There is no consensus to delete this page but rather to keep the information, although there is no consensus whether to do so in a stand-alone article or by merging the content. This can be discussed on the relevant talk pages though and is not hindered by the outcome of this AFD as "keep". Regards So Why 10:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devonshire House Preparatory School[edit]

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

Possible non-notable independent preparatory school; references are mostly weak, consisting mainly of passing mentions in press-releases/newsletters that don't meet the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" required by WP:N. The inspection report is fine, but I'm not sure that by itself it's enough to meet the GNG (which specifies "sources" plural). EyeSerene^talk 15:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are valid, I think. The charity work is notable and widespread. If you read the coverage several of these articles have long sections describing how the School has raised funds and how the School works with these charities - such as the hospital in India. I do not feel these are trivial, superficial references. There are many other references for the charity work that the school encourages that are not cited in the article to keep it short. Taken together I think this would constitute significant coverage alternative coverage to the ISI report. I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.235.194 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that primary schools are generally regarded as not notable because they don't usually receive the sort of widespread, in-depth coverage that establishes notability. Every school I'm aware of raises money for charity, so unless there is some unique distinction about your school, as opposed to other similar schools, then I don't believe it warrants a stand-alone article. DDG's suggestion below of a merge into our article about Hampstead might be the best solution. EyeSerene^talk 09:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per 193.195.235.194... A reference is a reference. Smithers (Talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tend towards delete. Schools raising money for charity? I'd say that would need a little more in the way of citation than self promotion and the websites of charities the money's being raised for. Otherwise I'd suggest this means just about any organisation which gives enough to charity to get a mention on a couple of websites or newsletters becomes notable. I might be more convinced if a case were made that it has secondary age pupils. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough notable Rirunmot 00:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
merge to the location as usual for primary schools. There is absolutely nothing notable shown. The charity gifts might be notable if covered by independent RSs. This is one place where the GNG makes some sense. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of schools in Hampstead per usual practice for primary schools without a clear claim to notability. Such core details as can be independently sourced should be merged. TerriersFan (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated Up to this point I find myself actually agreeing more and more with a deletion or a merging of this article since I can now see that, so far, the references are not adequate. I agree - a charity publishing the receipt of funds is clearly not really independent. Of course a lot of schools do excellent charitable work, but I do think the scale and nature of the charity fund raising at this school is notable, although I agree the references so far aren’t adequate. I have therefore added three further references to the article. The first two concern funds raised for the victims of the Asian Tsunami. One of the pupils was involved in the Tsunami and survived. These are interesting but again the first reference may not really meet the criteria for a good reference since it is the Sri Lankan Government (who received the funds - same problem as above). The second is from the Sri Lanka Daily News which is apparently Sri Lanka's national daily newspaper - established in 1918. I have no way of being totally sure that this is reliable, but it could well be. However I think the third reference is definitely valid. This is a news story in the well-established Hampstead and Highgate Express regional newspaper (the Ham and High) which had a story about the pupils recording music with singer Beverley Craven for charity. Since the ISI inspection report reference appears to be accepted as valid then surely the decision hangs on whether Ham and High article is a valid second reference and Sri Lankan newspaper is a valid third reference. Maybe that's too simplistic an approach but I think the Ham and High news story clearly meets the standards of an independent, verifiable and reliable source and the Sri Lankan Daily News probably meets the criteria and shows that coverage isn't just local. The article should be kept.

Here are the first two articles on the Asian Tsunami

Government of Sri Lanka http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca200503/20050318kadirgamar_on_sri_lankas_foreign_and_security_policy.htm

Sri Lankan Daily News http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/03/19/news03.htm

Here is the Ham and High news story on the music recording (sorry it's upside down!) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Ham_%26_High_14_June_2002_Devonshire_House_Singing_With_Beverly_Craven.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.235.194 (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are more articles covering the school in both the Ham and High and the Camden New Journal which aren't picked up by the Google News system. I can dig them out if they would help? In any case if there is still doubt about the acceptability of this article, would it be possible for this discussion to be relisted so that the AfD editors can asses the quality of all the new evidence?86.151.0.44 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Updated I have added coverage of school run congestion (in the Independent) and coverage of the response from the school (in the Camden New Journal).193.195.235.194 (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Updated I have added the Alumni section to show potentially notable academic success with senior schools which have competitive entry. Since the school's inspector (the ISI) doesn't give a grade 1 (like OFSTED) or Blue Ribbon award (for both primary and secondary schools in the US) there is no clear-cut sign as to notability. However the performance of the school's Alumni does suggest academic notability, perhaps?193.195.235.194 (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2009 (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.