Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire

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 no consensus. Early closing per the an/i discussion. The AfD should be re-started in a week or two. When the discussion restarts, the focus should be on whether the school meets the GNG, and no comments whatsoever should be made here or elsewhere about other editors. (In the meantime, people should not remove any apparently relevant sources from the article If the sources are inadequate, the article will of course be be deleted, & that will deal with any issues concerning them).) DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire[edit]

Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject appears to be a non-notable British private school. Subject does not seem to have achieved any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article seems to be filled with mostly trivia of little encyclopaedic value. I am concerned that this page might have been created for WP:ADVERTISING purposes. UPDATE: I propose that this subject be merged into Langton, North Yorkshire Salimfadhley (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a claim. Here's the article on creation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire&diff=489016740&oldid=154672905 . Now, pretty please with a cherry on top, where's the WP:ADVERTISING? Jeez, there wasn't any. Please stop your WP:Bully tactics. Final warning. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence to substantiate any of the above. School (and article) is established and notable on Google search for correct search term (Woodleigh School). isfutile:P (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that this subject passes the relevant Wikipedia Notability guidelines? I have pointed out that no evidence has been presented yet. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Google search" does not qualify as a third-party reliable source. Not seeing where this preparatory (aka primary) school meets WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it's fine for your matey above to quote this? (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WHOOPS! That's a Google search. Oh dear...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.90.36 (talk • contribs)
KEEP Talk page reveals that this is a spiteful action by certain editors. The edit history of the proposer appears to be destructive judging by the comments on the user talk page. Furthermore, if the proposed non notable argument is to hold water, then all of the schools on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparatory_school_(United_Kingdom) should also be deleted. This serves to illustrate how silly the deletion argument is. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC) — 213.246.90.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I think you are going a bit over the top suggesting that all prep school articles should be deleted. I'm sure there are 1 or 2 which deserve to stay. Fmph (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't very convincing. Moreover, quite a few of those schools don't have pages. --NYKevin @035, i.e. 23:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
))1 - You avoided answering the question. 2 - You hide behind Wiki rules. 3 - You are ganging up to get this page deleted. 4 - All the schools on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparatory_school_(United_Kingdom) have pages - you deliberately tried to confuse this issue. 5 - I've looked into your Elementary School argument and it's crap. On UK pages Prep Schools are notable and have been for years. 6 - You wouldn't dare delete the other prep schools because. 7 - You are a troll (or at least you behave like one). I can see that you've already deleted the page without waiting for consensus. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1 - what question would that be? 2 - Rules exist for a reason. If you want to ignore them, you need to explain how you'll be "improving the encyclopedia", and you need to convince others that that's what you'll be doing. 3 - Evidence? Diffs perhaps? 4 - I'm not confusing the issue at all, and I have responded to this argument already. 5 - What argument? Is this directed at someone else? 6, 7 - I'm not an administrator. I cannot delete pages. (7 is a personal attack, by the way). --NYKevin @181, i.e. 03:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP seems to pass notability test and the BBC source looks valid. The accounts appear to be a record of a series of interviews when looking at the whole miniature, and therefore not primary sources. I don't care for the tone of some of the previous comments but it would appear that the process has been hijacked by an editor(s) dispute. 178.101.141.154 (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— 178.101.141.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Fairly sure there's no advertising going on here. However, there doesn't seem to be sufficient coverage going on either. Of the third-party sources in the article, only one is more than a directory listing or tangential mention, and although the Beeb is usually a reliable source, in this case all we have are the archived recollections of an ex-pupil, submitted by said pupil - I reckon that falls under user-generated content. Elsewhere, there are a few passing mentions referencing ex-pupils of the school achieving various things, and some minor coverage of an educational card game which was developed by pupils. Nothing I've found, however, constitutes a usable source for the purposes of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Few hours ago most of the page is wiped, and [User:KeithD] restores http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire&curid=13023930&diff=488907233&oldid=488901058. Then you close off the consensus discussion on the talk page, claiming here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire&curid=21037154&diff=488948446&oldid=488903054 that "Seems to be pretty clear consensus to keep the statement and reference as is." and close off that discussion, and then hotfoot immediately over here to try and get the whole article deleted. Smells really fishy that. Are you trying to WP:SCARE off the other editors? 213.246.90.36 (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're clearly incapable of assuming good faith on this issue, I'm going to risk a tangent by responding here. I closed the discussion at Talk:Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire, per WP:RFC, because a consensus had emerged that was clearly against removing the reference - in other words, I closed it in favour of your position. I then noticed the AfD template had been added to the article page, and followed it here. I then performed a check of all the sources in the article, and ran several searches to see if I could find anything better. At no point have I made any attempt to "scare" anyone (there is no WP:SCARE policy, I'm guessing you meant WP:BULLY); that's an unfounded accusation, and yet another personal attack. You need to calm down, stop attacking editors who disagree with you, and try to engage in productive, policy-based discussion here. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise I have no personal stake in this matter. Woodleigh school sounds like a great place to learn and I'm sure it's dedicated teachers and local community think highly of it, however the issue at stake is whether the subject of the article passes WP:N... nothing more. Let's not get personal We need to identify reliable secondary sources that demonstrate sufficient notability to justify keeping the article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add some reliable secondary sources including http://www.gazetteherald.co.uk/features/features/8184375.A_visit_to_Woodleigh_School_in_Langton/ but the page appears largely wiped. Again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire&action=history. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith based on the edit history of this article. As for "attacking editors" - who started this?! Perhaps look at the diffs before throwing mud. And yes I do think WP:BULLY is justified. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the vandalism to the page again, and will warn the IP editor who keeps removing content in a moment. I have also withdrawn my Delete !vote above, based on the Gazette Herald article - it's certainly a valid source, and convinces me to hold off pushing for deletion. WP:GNG requires multiple sources, so if you've got a couple more like that, the article should stay.
If you are accusing me of bulling, then piss or get off the pot - take it to Dispute resolution or ANI and provide diffs as evidence. If you continue to throw such allegations at me and other editors (and they are very serious allegations) without showing any evidence or attempting any resolution, then I will have no choice but to report you for multiple personal attacks and breaches of WP:CIVIL. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yanshui, has the Gazette Herald link been removed from the article? I agree this was the most reliable source we have but I dispute your statement that it is a WP:RS for establishing WP:N. It reads like an advertorial to me - the clue is that it contains zero news content. The article gives no impression of the school's importance - it's just a jumble of personal impressions and historical factoids based on a single visit. Why is this journalist even at the school? There seems to be no reason other than to review it. Local papers often run advertorial content as an alternative to more traditional forms of advertising. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't been added yet; I'll get on it shortly. Whilst I appreciate that it's strictly local news, with no actual news content, it still constitutes (IMHO) the bare minimum for notability: it's significant coverage of the school, in an organ which isn't affiliated with the school (yes, it does use extensive quotes from a staff member, but there's other factual content there too), from a source which we can expect to meet at least the minimum requirements for editorial oversight. If you feel strongly about it, you could consider starting a discussion at WP:RSN. More sources are definitely needed, though; one isn't enough. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source is not enough of a problem to alert RSN, since I somewhat agree with you. This source may indeed meet the minimum requirements for a WP:RS, however I do not feel that we should vote to keep the article based entirely on the weight of this article alone. I do agree with you that a number of similar articles might indicate enduring notability however no such articles have come to light yet. Regardless of the outcome of the AFD we should remove the questionable sources from this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that if you click the author link for that Gazzette article, you get a blank bio page and a generic gazette e-mail. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karen Darley is the paper's news reporter. www.gazetteherald.co.uk/contactus/ . She's also the former Editor if the Pocklington Post. That email you seem so het up about is present on EVERY article. Maybe you want to phone her up to confirm (!) Before casting aspersions, try checking your facts, K? And be [WP:CIVIL] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing clarity as to the author of the article. But I am not going to apologize for not recognizing the name of a local reporter when the papers own bio page for her is blank. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Could any editors who have voted Keep kindly answer the following questions. a) Why do you believe that this subject passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. b) Do you have or have you ever had any association with Woodleigh school? Thanks --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm undecided at the moment, but, Salimfadhley, your question (b) is a particularly bullshit thing to raise at AfD as it's practically ad hominem. Do you have any connection with Woodleigh School's competitors that you've nominated it for deletion? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thats not an ad hominem attack? Fmph (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's demonstrating the point, and you know it. Stop acting like an inflammatory tool. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess that's not ad hominem either. Must be that the term 'tool' has much more polite connotations in Oz than here in the UK. Fmph (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid community consensus is no such thing. The consensus as observed at WP:AFD is that mostly hooks catering for students below the age of 12-14 are non-notable. Fmph (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources to indicate notability: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

I appreciate Yunshui adding the source mentioned earlier. I'm a newbie so I don't know how to add the above sources to the article and I would really appreciate some help. Thank you in advance. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've also found these sources:

[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] 213.246.90.36 (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be more persuasive if you were to provide a top-5 most valuable links. Also, wrap your links in square-brackets so that MediaWiki formats them correctly. Here's an example [31] When choosing your top-5 please try to select actual news articles , exclude routine anouncements. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't think it's up to the IP to do that. You have made a series of requests re finding sources to satisfy notability, and then more demands are placed. It isn't incumbent on the IP to prove anything. I think the editors on here are being a touch unfair, in my opinion. isfutile:P (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I reviewed a random selection of the links the IP provided - they mostly seem to be a collection of routine announcements (e.g. sporting fixtures, trivia and school competitions) and articles which are not significantly about the school. I could not see anything in the set of links provided which indicated any significant notability. I think it's fair to ask those who claim that this school is notable should point out what is most notable about this school. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any evidence to support that statement? Vested interests? What exactly do you mean by that? I've looked and there's a heap of sources above. isfutile:P (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, unfortunately I have no idea what those links above are supposed to support, other than some of them mention the school. The references I was referring to are those in the actual article. If any one wants to add some of those from this page onto the article, I'm quite willing to have another look. Fmph (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but that last comment makes no sense to me at all. Please can you explain more clearly with some links or examples? isfutile:P (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explain what? You are the one making no sense, I'd suggest. Fmph (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to snap. I will clarify by quoting your comment:"I have no idea what those links above are supposed to support". To which links in particular are you referring? "The references I was referring to are those in the actual article." Please can you elaborate and detail which references in the article. Thank you. isfutile:P (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
assuming your questions are numbered 1 and 2, my corresponding answers are 1) the links above us in this page, and 2) all the references in the article bar the BBC blog. Fmph (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is why I asked for explanation. All the links by the IP are relevant to the school - ie the school is the subject of the news report. As for the article , all the references are cited and relevant. I've looked again at the article again and I cannot correlate your comments above to the article or links you refer to. That is why I asked for an explanation. isfutile:P (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
as I said, some of them mention the school. But I'm not sure what they are supposed to support. That the school competes in public speaking competitions for schools? That the school exists? What? We all know that the school exists. That doesn't mean that it is sufficiently notable to have an article on WP. So can you tell me in what way each of those links gels establish notability under the general notability guideline? Or even if you add them as references in the article, I would take a look at them. But if someone just bungs a bunch of poorly formatted links on a page and expects everyone else to do the work in figuring out which ones mean anything, then they will be waiting a long time. Fmph (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they all establish notability as per WP:WPSCH/AG#OS . Perhaps you could clarify your position by detailing any issues by referring to the policy and citing hard evidence from the article. isfutile:P (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, WP:WPSCH/AG#OS is neither a policy nor a guideline. It's an essay that has failed to be ratified on a number of different occasions. Whilst there s plenty of good stuff in there that I would agree with (and I would vote to accept the entire thing if it came to a vote) it unfortunately is toothless and cannot be enforced. It has lots of good suggestions, but they are not policy. unfortunately. WP:GNG is the relevant guideline. Fmph (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not state WP:WPSCH/AG#OS is policy, although I would contend it is a relevant guidance. Regardless, it references relevant policy regarding schools' notability in some detail and I still contend that this article meets those requirements. I would disagree that WP:GNG is the relevant guideline in this case - as per the text and exemplar material in WP:WPSCH/AG#OS . Perhaps you could clarify your position by detailing any issues by referring to the policy and citing hard evidence from the article. isfutile:P (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG applies universally. WP:WPSCH/AG#OS is indeed just an essay not policy. It does however helpfully link to WP:GROUP which is official policy for evaluating the notability of schools and other organizations.--Salimfadhley (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does reference WP:ORG and I believe the article in its current state meets those requirements for notability. isfutile:P (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, you are obviously entitled to your opinion. The opinion that counts is that of the closer. Fmph (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) -- Initailly I had my doubts on this, because we normally only keep High Schools (age 11-16 or 11-18), whereas we habitally delete Primary Schools (though personally, I think that merging them to an article on the place where they are is much better solution. This is not a Primary School, it is a Prep School (short for Preparatory), meaning preparing children for Public School. Typically they educate children aged 8-13, with a view to their taking the Entrance Exam for Public School. Category:Preparatory schools in England already contains about 180 articles, mostly split into county sub-cats. If this school article is deleted, then so should many of the 180 others. Assuming there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the content, I see no reason for not keeping this. However, I know nothing of the particular school. The size (with 90 pupils) is probably typical for a school with a single stream, indicating a year-group of 18 pupils, which reflects the kind of teacher-pupil ratio expected in this kind of school. In response to those with whom I have had an edit conflict: the test is not whether the article is referneced (i.e. verified), but whehter it is verifiable: if content is unverifiable (in the snese of being untrue or WP:OR, that content should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See WP:WAX - many organizations which fail wikipedia's notability guidelines have articles. This does not invalidate our policies - it means we need to clean-up the other articles! --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify your point - ts that your suggested course of action? isfutile:P (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For ease of understanding, please could all editors involved look at the criteria for schools here WP:WPSCH/AG#OS and then look at the school article here Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire before detailing any issues by referring to the policy and citing hard evidence from the article. I hope this might move the discussion forward in a positive manner. isfutile:P (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think you mean WP:GROUP, that's the formally adopted notability guidelines which apply to all organizations including schools. It's linked-to from the essay you posted. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does reference WP:ORG and I believe the article in its current state meets those requirements for notability. Please can we keep replies in one place for ease of viewing. Also This article as it stands clearly already surpasses the requirements for WP:N isfutile:P (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - would you mind explaining your basis for claiming that the article surpasses the requirements for WP:N? The easiest way to do this would be to indicate which reliable secondary sources indicate the kind of enduring notability we are looking for. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary sources which indicate notability are: The source by Karen Darley from the Malton Gazette; The source from the BBC WW2 interviews; The National Football call up article from the Malton and Pickering Mercury and the Alumni Mark Herman source from the Scarborough Evening News. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns about the Karen Darley "article" in the Gazette. When you click the Author tab, the bio page for Darley is blank with a generic Gazette e-mail. Who is she? what is her relation to the Gazette? What is her relation to the school? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't give up do you? That's third time you've pasted that little piece of misinformation with an inflammatory edit comment. Please stop leaving 'turds' littered in the discussion and please don't multipost. Karen Darley is the paper's news reporter. http://www.gazetteherald.co.uk/contactus/ . She's also the former Editor if the Pocklington Post. That email you seem so het up about is present on EVERY article on the website. Maybe you want to phone her up to confirm (!) Before casting aspersions, try checking your facts, K? And be [WP:CIVIL]isfutile:P (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Langton, North Yorkshire, as per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools and WP:ORG, and then make a cup of tea, sit down, and reflect on why discussions like this turn into personal attacks, ad hominem, and nonsense. We all have better things to do than lose our minds over a school's Wikipedia article when the precedent is already set. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Article meets notability in WP:GROUP, WP:Vand WP:GNG. There's no evidence of WP:ADVERTISING and there are more than sufficient reliable sources. I see a lot of shouting for delete, but no effort on the part of these editors to convince others by using evidence. These arguments to delete seem to derive from attempting to discredit those attempting to improve the article and any attributed comments, and by cleverly equivocating so as to assert that they never said what they never said it said. Rather than making clear positive assertions, WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:ITSNOTABLE, and WP:ASSERTN are being relied upon. I have no interest in this article, but this AfD is a disaster. Those proposing deletion need to be clear and precise as to their reasoning. Nowhere is this apparent. 95.149.231.88 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— 95.149.231.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The original basis for this AFD was lack of evidence of notability. If you are so certain of this subject's notability would you kindly point out which of the previously identified links count as reliable secondary sources suitable for establishing this subject's notability. For brevity please reveal the best three sources. That would be sufficient to establish notability beyond doubt. This should be a very easy task for you given your strong belief that this AFD is unwarranted.

--Salimfadhley (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obliged to. The onus on you is to demonstrate your reasons for delete. I'm quite happy to discuss your reasoning, or the reasoning of any other editor. However, each time reasoning and evidence has been asked for, none has materialised. isfutile:P (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary sources which indicate notability are: The source by Karen Darley from the Malton Gazette; The source from the BBC WW2 interviews; The National Football call up article from the Malton and Pickering Mercury and the Alumni Mark Herman source from the Scarborough Evening News. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable, run-of-the-mill elementary school. Google hits are all trivial, local, tangential or routine; nothing out of the ordinary for a school of this type. No substantial coverage in widely-read publications, and none have been produced by the editors arguing for "keep". Insufficient substantial coverage to establish notability. Afraid that there is a lot of puffery, as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As previously discussed, the school is not an elementary school. Notability has already been discussed in detail earlier. A wide list of substantial local and regional coverage has been provided by editors arguing for keep; and is also already present in the article. There is no evidence of puffery - can you illustrate an example? isfutile:P (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see your evidence for WP:Puffery too. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any school that provides education up to age 13 is an elementary school. This is not the equivalent of a seconday school. None of the sources provided are substantial enough to establish notability, even when added up. Practically all schools get covered in the local press. Nothing outstanding about that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Prep school, not an elementary school. (We don't have elementary schools in the UK) The rules and practice for that has already been discussed by PeterKingIron. As for the notability (wikipedia doesn't have a policy for 'outstanding'), that's your unsubstantiated view and you are entitled to it. isfutile:P (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Notability[edit]

Notable alumni Mark Herman – Film director of Brassed Off and The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas.[14] Ralph Ineson – Actor who appeared in the Harry Potter films, playing Amycus Carrow.[15] Henry Priestman – Singer songwriter famous for his work with The Christians

[edit]References

  1. "Langton". GENUKI. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  2. Darley, Karen (26 May 2010). "A Visit to Woodleigh School in Langton". Gazette & Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  3. Passmore, Joanna (12 January 2006). "WW2 People's War". BBC News. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  4. "Young Ryedale musician hits high note to win scholarship". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  5. "National call-up for Tom". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  6. "Authors tell their tales in the classroom". Gazette and Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  7. "Winners announced in Malton Literature Festival's young writers competition". Gazette and Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  8. "Youngsters win literature prize in regional final". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  9. "Speaking highly of pupils". Scarborough Evening News. 8 August 2008. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  10. Milner, Natalie (20 March 2012). "Special Educational Needs: our recommended schools". First Eleven Magazine. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  11. "Crested Report". CRESTED. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  12. "List of Schools". York Boarding Schools Group (YBSG). Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  13. "UK Rankings". The Independent Schools Directory. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  14. "University to honour director". Scarborough Evening News. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  15. "Ralph Ineson". Ovguide.com. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Now it will be interesting to see if the editors arguing for Delete discuss this in a [[WP:CIVIL] manner, avoid biting the newbies and rely on substantive evidence and argument. OR will they simply rip into the above and rely on WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:ITSNOTABLE, and WP:ASSERTN as an earlier editor suggested? In the interests of AGF I do hope it's the former. If it's the latter then it's a case of Hoist with his own petard isfutile:P (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all nice, but it's far too little to establish notability. Nothing out of the ordinary for an ordinary elementary school. Your combative tone is not at all appreciated, either, and does little to help your case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think I am being combative. Quite the contrary, I have invited clarification and discussion at all points on this page and received replies such as yours. While your reply is not rude, does it really add anything positive to the discussion? In addition I have received a number of replies from other editors which appear designed to inflame. Now if the case for DELETE was so strong, why would editors choose to behave in an WP:UNCIVIL manner? Very strange. Regarding your argument regarding notability, perhaps you could clarify your position by detailing any issues by referring to the policy and citing hard evidence from the article. OR alternatively, perhaps you could detail what you would consider to be the required level of notability by providing a clearly evidenced and cited example. isfutile:P (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment | I suggest these secondary sources indicate notability: The source by Karen Darley from the Malton Gazette; The source from the BBC WW2 interviews; The National Football call up article from the Malton and Pickering Mercury and the Alumni Mark Herman source from the Scarborough Evening News.213.246.90.36 (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Langton, North Yorkshire. Article is about an organization that has not gotten significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The reference published by BBC News looks promising at first glance, but it's user-contributed material, not something that goes through their normal editorial review. Everything else appears to be peripheral mentions and nothing in-depth about the school. Thus, there's not enough for a stand-alone article, but it's probably worth a brief mention (no more than two paragraphs) in the Langton article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at the discussion here, and the sources provided, I think the article passes WP:GNG. Notability does not require that a subject by specially important relative to its peers, it only requires a certain level of coverage in reliable sources. The subject here meets that threshold. The article could be improved to be a bit less of an advertisement, but when an article is up for deletion it is understandable that every good thing about the subject will be toted out to increase notability, and regardless, the solution to a notable topic that seems a bit ad like is to improve it, not delete. Monty845 00:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quality of sources
3.independent source - user contrib content - reliability not established
4. Discusses a pupil not the school - does not suggest pupils success is due to schools influence
5. Pupil called up to 'national' team - again refers to pupil not school - national is a joke. No oils on that team.
6. Author visits school? News? Notability? Really?

More to follow? Fmph (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of sources[edit]

To help make things easier, I'm going to review the listed sources for compliance with WP:GNG; that is to say, whether they are significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The references which are currently in the article (as of 07:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)) are as follows:

  1. "Langton". GENUKI. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N This article mentions a school in passing. It does not refer to Woodleigh School by name, nor does it provide any significant coverage.
  2. Darley, Karen (26 May 2010). "A Visit to Woodleigh School in Langton". Gazette & Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This was discussed above; it is significant coverage in a reliable (editorially oversighted) publication which is independent of the school.
  3. Passmore, Joanna (12 January 2006). "WW2 People's War". BBC News. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N Whilst the BBC is generally considered a reliable source, this is content contributed by a member of the public - effectively user-generated. In addition, the submitter is the daughter of the school's original headmaster, and thus a primary source. As a source for verification, it could be valid, but not for notability.
  4. Joanna Passmore & Mary Robertson (1987). Memories of Woodleigh School. Foursquare Press. p. 11. ☒N This is a self-published work, by the daughters of the school's headmaster; as such, it is neither reliable (no editorial oversight) nor independent (although their relationship to the school would be irrelevent if the book had been professionally published).
  5. "Young Ryedale musician hits high note to win scholarship". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N There's a quote here from the headmaster of the school, but no coverage of the school itself.
  6. "National call-up for Tom". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N Again, a quote from a staff member, but zero coverage of the school.
  7. "Authors tell their tales in the classroom". Gazette and Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N This is almost certainly a school press release (the fact that there's no journalist listed in the byline as author is a dead giveaway).
  8. "Winners announced in Malton Literature Festival's young writers competition". Gazette and Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N This report is on a pupil at the school, but provides no coverage of the school itself.
  9. "Youngsters win literature prize in regional final". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N The school's team won second prize in a quiz, but - no coverage of the school itself.
  10. "Speaking highly of pupils". Scarborough Evening News. 8 August 2008. Retrieved 24 April 2012.☒N Mentions the school in a list of entrants to the competition, but gives no other information.
  11. Milner, Natalie (20 March 2012). "Special Educational Needs: our recommended schools". First Eleven Magazine. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N This is no more than a directory listing.
  12. "Crested Report". CRESTED. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N This has been discussed at length on the article talkpage, but in any case is hosted on the school website and therefore not independent.
  13. "List of Schools". York Boarding Schools Group (YBSG). Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N This is just another directory listing.
  14. "UK Rankings". The Independent Schools Directory. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N This provides significant coverage, but the text is provided by the school itself; thus, not independent.
  15. "University to honour director". Scarborough Evening News. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N This is a passing mention that provides no coverage of the school.
  16. "Ralph Ineson". Ovguide.com. Retrieved 24 April 2012. ☒N Another passing mention (and an unreliable source, to boot).
  17. Chomka, Stefan (15 Sep 2007). "Momentum building to get card game into every school". The Grocer. Retrieved 25 April 2012. ☒N Coverage of a card game developed by pupils at the school, but no coverage of the school itself.

At present, then, we have one source which is suitable for demonstrating notability. However, both WP:ORG and WP:GNG require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, which we do not yet have here. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about the Karen Darley "article" in the Gazette. When you click the Author tab, the bio page for Darley is blank with a generic Gazette e-mail. Who is she? what is her relation to the Gazette? What is her relation to the school? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've already posted that above, and I've already replied. Please don't multipost. Karen Darley is the paper's news reporter. http://www.gazetteherald.co.uk/contactus/ . She's also the former Editor if the Pocklington Post. That email you seem so het up about is present on EVERY article on the website. Maybe you want to phone her up to confirm (!) Before casting aspersions, try checking your facts, K? And be [WP:CIVIL]isfutile:P (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of dis/mis/information in the above 'analysis'. "this report is on a pupil but provides no coverage of the school.' How daft! Every school is made up of pupils. Without pupils there would be no school, only a building. Coverage of pupils is inherently coverage of the school. "Whilst the BBC is generally considered a reliable source, this is content contributed by a member of the public - effectively user-generated" There's no evidence to support that. I have to wonder if the editor has made it up? The assertion that an article in the Malton Gazette and Herald must have been written by the school since there is no byline is crass and unsubstantiated. In fact, none of the website articles on the Gazette website have bylines. "This is a self-published work, by the daughters of the school's headmaster; as such, it is neither reliable (no editorial oversight) nor independent (although their relationship to the school would be irrelevant if the book had been professionally published)" The book's publisher is cite and is clearly an independent publisher. Why make up an allegation of self publishing? Accusations of 'Press Release' writing - but no evidence and looking at the sources, they are clearly published by the newspaper. Why the misinformation? The editor has no evidence to suggest otherwise - again I have to have to wonder why the editor would make up such an assertion is not to simply discredit the source with misinformation? I think using disinformation and fiction to discredit sources is really quite [WP:UNCIVIL] isfutile:P (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bullet this, for clarity:
  • Every school is indeed made up of pupils. However, a single pupil is not a school. Notability is not inherited from related notable subjects - thus, the fact that famous rock star X attended primary school Y does not make primary school Y notable by Wikipedia standards.
  • The linked BBC page specifically states that the story is from a civilian source. In addition, this page on the site explains exactly how the information was gathered - from volunteer members of the public.
  • Actually, nearly all the articles on the Gazette & Herald's site have a small author byline giving the reporter's name. See, for example this article, this article, this article...
  • Two publishing companies called "Foursquare Press" are registered with either Neilsen Bookdata and the Publisher's Association. One is a tiny press based in Massechusetts that has published two books of poetry. The other is a New York-based based private press that publishes books by Deahn Berrini and L.B. Smith - and no-one else. Neither has ever published anything connected to Woodleigh School.
  • Newspapers - especially local one like those quoted in the article - regularly publish press releases or articles based solely on press releases. That's what a press release is for. They're useful for verifiability, but don't count towards notability as they are not independent of the subject.
Finally, you should really read the policies you cite with such abandon. WP:CIVIL says nothing about discrediting sources (especially when they are not being discredited, but merely assessed for the purposes of WP:GNG), but it is quite specific in stating that "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" are violations of the policy. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't actually recommended a merge (I placed an early Delete !vote, which I've since redacted). However, since I may as well throw my 2¢ into the pot again, Merge to Langton, North Yorkshire per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review
  1. "Langton". GENUKI. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This article is relevant to schools history. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  2. Darley, Karen (26 May 2010). "A Visit to Woodleigh School in Langton". Gazette & Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This was discussed above; it is significant coverage in a reliable (editorially oversighted) publication which is independent of the school.
  3. Passmore, Joanna (12 January 2006). "WW2 People's War". BBC News. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This article is relevant to schools history and is from a highly reliable source with strong editorial control. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  4. Joanna Passmore & Mary Robertson (1987). Memories of Woodleigh School. Foursquare Press. p. 11. checkY This article is relevant to schools history. Independently published book. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  5. "Young Ryedale musician hits high note to win scholarship". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkYThis article is relevant to schools coverage in local media. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  6. "National call-up for Tom". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This article is relevant to school's coverage in local media. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  7. "Winners announced in Malton Literature Festival's young writers competition". Gazette and Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This article is relevant to school's coverage in local media. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  8. "Youngsters win literature prize in regional final". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This article is relevant to school's coverage in local media. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  9. "Speaking highly of pupils". Scarborough Evening News. 8 August 2008. Retrieved 24 April 2012.checkY This article is relevant to schools coverage in local media. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  10. Milner, Natalie (20 March 2012). "Special Educational Needs: our recommended schools". First Eleven Magazine. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This article is relevant to school's coverage in national magazine, and that magazines website. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  11. "Crested Report". CRESTED. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This article is relevant to school's inspection, carried out independently by Crested, a national organization. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG] - comment - this is a scanned or photocopied version of what purports to be a Crested report. It is hosted on the Woodleigh website and is therefore not reliable or independent.Fmph (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "List of Schools". York Boarding Schools Group (YBSG). Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This listing is relevant to school's coverage in a notable local organization, and that orgs website. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  13. "UK Rankings". The Independent Schools Directory. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This article is relevant to school's coverage in an independent national ranking, and that org's website. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  14. "University to honour director". Scarborough Evening News. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This article is relevant to school's alumni coverage in local media. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]
  15. "Ralph Ineson". Ovguide.com. Retrieved 24 April 2012. checkY This article is relevant to school's alumni coverage on an independent website. Meets "Significant coverage", is "Reliable", is a "Secondary Source", is "Independent of the subject" can be "Presumed" and therefore covers [WP:GNG]isfutile:P (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • isfutile:P, I have not verified all of the links above, however a number of obvious factual errors stood out. First of all you misunderstand the meaning of "Independent of the subject". Passmore (nee England) is a member of the family which originally founded the school and could hardly be considered independent. A number of articles which you flagged as having "significant coverage" only provide trivial coverage of the school. Significant coverage means that the article mostly covers our subject. In the case of the Ralph Ineson article it's mostly about his life's achievement with only a trivial mention of his schooling. Finally you appear to misunderstand the meaning of "Secondary Source". The BBC item is an example of an individual (Mrs Pasmoore again) providing her personal observations. This is actually a primary source. Would be kind enough to re-check the relevant policy documents and re-appraise these links, striking-out the ones which have been included as a result of a misunderstanding. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Salimfadhley , I have verified all of the links above, and no factual errors stand out. First of all I do understand the meaning of "Independent of the subject". The Passmore book is published by an independent publisher. All of articles which I flagged as having "significant coverage" provide coverage of the school as per [WP:GNG]. In the case of the Ralph Ineson article it's directly relevant to his schooling, hence satisfies school alumni notability. Finally I clearly do understand the meaning of "Secondary Source". The BBC item is an example of an interview by a highly regarded secondary news outlet with extensive editorial controls. This is most definitely a secondary source. isfutile:P (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me pick on just one of the items you mentioned - the BBC item is not an interview. It's a personal statement by Mrs Passmore. It's not clear if the BBC has performed any fact-checking at all, most likely they are accurately reporting her personal statement. Claims such as "We stayed at Firby Hall all through the war" make it abundantly clear that this is indeed a primary source - the "We" in question is Mrs Pasmoore and not the journalist. BBC is a very big web-site that includes many sections. You have correctly identified that BBC News is generally considered to be a reliable secondary source, however you have misidentified this page as belonging to BBC News - it's actually part of BBC History which is a different unit. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me pick on your reply - the BBC item is an interview which has in turn been vetted, edited and proofed for publication. It is a secondary source which makes use of the recorded recollections by Mrs Passmore. It's is clear that BBC has performed considerable fact-checking, as they have extensive editorial guidelines, procedure and safeguards which are detailed on their website and required by by-law via the BBC Trust. Most likely the article has passed through numerous journalists, sub-editors and an overall site editor. Claims such as "We stayed at Firby Hall all through the war," make it abundantly clear that this is indeed an interview carried out for the BBC site. "We," in question is Mrs Pasmoore's words, being recorded by a journalist/editor correctly writing up the interview as per the BBC house style. The BBC is a very big web-site that includes many sections, all of which have strict editorial controls. I have correctly identified that BBC.co.uk is generally considered to be a reliable secondary source, I have identified this page as belonging to BBC.co.uk. BBC History is part of BBC.co.uk and is thus under the same strict editorial controls as the BBC.co.uk site . isfutile:P (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether we regard it as an interview or an autobiography is pretty much irrelevent - it's still a primary source. Primary sources aren't forbidden, but they must be used with caution - and they don't count towards notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agree here, interesting but still a primary source and not a testament to notability. Passmore's recollections are on the BBC History site, not BBC news. All the stories were written by the contributors, with the aid of volunteers for those who needed help with the internet. The project collected WWII memories from 47,000 people in all. This does not remotely mean that anything and everything they talked about or remembered was notable in the encyclopedic sense. (More about the project here.) Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I agree with Salimfadhley on all counts. The editor has a real misunderstanding of what constitutes "significant coverage" as well as "primary sources". I checked all of the links, and none of them apart from Darley, Karen (26 May 2010). "A Visit to Woodleigh School in Langton". Gazette & Herald. qualify as a piece of significant coverage, i.e. a published secondary source which covers the school in depth. The first one listed is not a valid reference, period. It merely states:
"A school was built by Col. Norcliffe in 1841, and has been entirely supported by the lord of the manor."
This could not possibly refer to Woodleigh School, which was not founded until 1929 and whose only connection with the Norcliffe family is that it leased Langton Hall from them after World War II. The Passmore book was privately printed and is not held by a single library [32]. School rankings in various directories, as well as inspection reports are common to all schools, and provide no evidence of the school's notability, nor is a one-line listing consisting of the school's name in these various directories remotely equivalent to "signficant coverage". Note also that "Ralph Ineson". Ovguide.com. which allegedly attests to "the school's alumni coverage on an independent website" is merely a guide to online videos and is actually a copy of the Wikipedia article Ralph Ineson. - Voceditenore (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat is hardly reliable for a book published by a small independent in 1987! Foursquare publishing is a notable publisher in it's own right, albeit now out of print. isfutile:P (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As already discussed, the requirement for alumni details is to ensure the information is verifiable. This requirement is met. I stand by all previous comments and I'm not going to respond to this tit-for-tat unless anything substantive and new is introduced to the discussion. So far the content has not been analysed, only the editor - please try to adhere to [WP:CIVIL] and comment on the content, and not the editors. Further citations have been added to the article which also meet WP:GNGisfutile:P (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, there has been extensive analysis of the sources and how they relate to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and primary sources. The Passmore booklet is actually available on the school's website here. Read the introduction to it on page 2. Contrary to what is stated in the WP article, it was clearly not published in 1987 and there is no mention of "Fourquare Press" as its publisher either there or anywhere else on the internet. "Foursquare" may have been the name of local printing firm, but this booklet was certainly not published by the Foursquare Press in Cambridge Massachusetts. Other inaccuracies in the article and in this discussion are claims that this source is about the school, when it clearly isn't, and misrepresenting Passmore's WWII memories as being published by BBC News. If this article is kept (or merged), these will all have to be corrected Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact the school's text is copied from the book which was cited correctly before your edit. I have left a comment with the details of the book published by Foursquare Press of Malton, North Yorkshire, with the citation correction on the page. Wouldn't it have been better to ask or research properly, rather than assume? isfutile:P (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you notice that two of the three links you provided appear to be advertorials for the same card-game devised by some students at the school. Neither article is substantially about the school! --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it may have been designed by the head. But anyway, all seem to be reporting on how close this card game was to being a major educational success story, and about the quest for investors/sponsors. But none report on the ACTUAL success of the project in getting these cards manufactured and distributed outside the school itself. Funny that, eh? Fmph (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Grocer is not a reliable source for information about education or schools. Unless this card game can be shown to have had significant impact in the grocery business then it's views are not germane. Furthermore, unless this card game can be shown to have had any enduring notability then it just makes the article seem silly by it's inclusion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does any reliable secondary source attest to the notability of this building? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability simply means being recognised in reliable sources. This school is already recognised in multiple reliable sources. Local papers are reliable sources, and are on many occasions more reliable for items of local interest than national newspapers. The building itself has an entry in the national Images of England database which is the link I cited above. Any listed building like this of architectural importance will also be referenced in other independent sources such as Pevsner, etc, but of course many of these books will not be available online. Dahliarose (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The building is perhaps best known for the paintings of it by the artist Mary Ellen Best (One of which is here http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/artist35158/Mary-Ellen-Best/page-1 ) another here: http://www.artnet.com/artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=9BD40A0BDBA0742AA5B22D5463294331 isfutile:P (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dahlia knows quite well that her assertion is widely disputed across the pedia. What is required is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fmph (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. This is an extremely borderline case. The articles in The Grocer trade journal, complete with the headmaster's email address, are basically trivial coverage. Whichever Foursquare Press printed the book, it is basically a privately published primary source. However, I've just added another article from the Gazette & Herald (by a different reporter), a profile of Langton with a significant chunk devoted to the school. In my view, it is these Gazette & Herald articles (and only these) which count as significant coverage of the school itself in reliable, independent, secondary sources, but it's probably just enough to scrape a pass. Having said that, the coverage is very local and I'd be equally happy with a merge to Langton, North Yorkshire. Voceditenore (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's of great significance which Foursquare Press printed the book. If this was the work of an international publisher of repute then it might imply some kind of notability. If Foursquare Press was simply a local print-shop or a vanity publisher then it counts for less. Regarding the Gazette & Herald, this publication seems to have a very odd editorial policy of covering local school sporting fixtures - all but one of these articles are simply announcements of fixtures or results - not news - precisely the kind of content which cannot be used to establish notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second Gazette & Herald article I was referring to is:
Metcalfe, Claire (23 November 2006)."Langton". Gazette & Herald
It's got a couple of paragraphs about the school in an article about the village of Langton. It's got nothing to do with sporting fixtures which I agree are irrelevant to establishing notability. According to isfutile, who has a copy of the booklet, Memories of Woodleigh School, the publisher is a Foursquare Press in Malton, North Yorkshire. As I said, whether the Yorkshire "Foursquare" is a local printer or an authors's imprint, it's clearly a self-published primary source—useful for information, but not for establishing notability. Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book on the school's history is quite acceptable as per WP:SELFSOURCE. It is factual and not unduly self-serving. There is no reason to suppose that the information in this book is inaccurate. Dahliarose (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is arguing that the book can't be used a source of information; it is, in fact, an excellent source for that purpose. The debate here is over the school's notability, and self-published, primary sources are excluded from use for that purpose. As regards Foursquare Press: there is no mainstream publisher with that name. As I explained above, there are two extremely small publishers in the US called Foursquare Press, neither of whom has anything remotely to do with this book. The most likely explanation is that it's an author imprint, invented by the author(s) to retain copyright, although the theory that it was a local printer is also plausible. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing makes your bare assertion that it was a local printer plausible. Do you have any evidence? No. Are you simply shitting on any evidence for notability which appears. Yes. Another editor has given the book details including the ISBN and the publisher details and stated it was an independent publisher. Are you calling that editor a liar? Do you have any reason for doubting that editor? Can you quote a policy stating any editor you disagree with shouldn't be believed? ROFL. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off, calm down. Telling other editors to "fuck off", as you did to me in your edit summary, isn't going to get you anywhere except blocked. As to the book; I must have missed the posting of its ISBN (if you can post it again, I'd appreciate it, it would make tracking it down much easier), but the bare assertion that "Foursquare is a notable publisher" is demonstrably false. Foursquare press are not members of the British Publishers Association] (which is pretty much a standard requirement to be taken seriously in the book industry over here). They have no website, nor do any of their publications (including the one under discussion) appear on Neilsen Bookdata, which aggregates ISBN data from publishers all over the world. As far as I can tell (and searching for obscure books is what I do for a living) the only places this book exists are on the school's website and at scribd.com. If you can point me at a website for Foursquare Press (not the American ones) or at an entry for them in any reliable database of publishers, I'll be willing to consider the book was not vanity published. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have no evidence to suggest the other editor is lying. You are suggesting the other editor is lying, So yes, fuck off! The ISBN is in the commments. Get off ur arse and find it yourself and stop placing all the demands on others, you lazy git. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totolatin (talk • contribs) 10:23, 26 April 2012‎
Please do not attack or insult other editors. I've finally found the ISBN, in one of Tony's edit summaries - the trouble is, ISBN 0709042376x isn't a valid ISBN number - it seems to contain one extra digit. Thus, I dutifully tried all possible ten-digit versions, deleting one digit each time. No results. I'm emphatically not calling Tony a liar - we disagree, but I don't doubt that it's a real book, nor that he owns a copy. However, it isn't a book that's been reliably published, and it's ISBN is unregistered. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it appears that the building is a Grade_II_listed_building. There appears to be no consensus that that grants notability in the wikipedia sense, and it certainly doesn't grant notability to the organsiation that happens to current occupy the building (although an article on the building would/should cover the current use). Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what what was done at Moreton Hall (Suffolk), where the original article had been "Moreton Hall Preparatory School". I agree that the notability of a building does not transfer to its occupants, particularly when the occupation came very late in the building's history. Also in the "Moreton" case, the building is a Grade II* and designed by a famous architect. In the "Woodleigh" case, the building is only Grade II (about 300,000 buildings in the UK have that designation). In practice however, I think a well-referenced article on any Grade II building would survive an AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability in the Wikipedia sense does not mean noteworthy or important. It simply means that the subject has been noticed in reliable sources. "Notability" cannot therefore be conferred by a single source. The important point is that if a building has been listed it will have been noticed by other sources. In any case WP:N is a constantly changing guideline but it is not official policy. The question is whether or not the article is supported by reliable sources as required by the Help:Five pillars. The article meets all the requirements of the five pillars and there is consequently no reason for it to be deleted. Dahliarose (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A further notable citation for a School cricket team which won the North Yorkshire (County) event and played in the all Yorkshire (Area) finals. [36] I believe simple reporting of sporting or academic events occurring (a routine if not daily event for most schools) does not establish notability. However, a school winning a district/county (or higher) level sporting or academic event does count towards establishing notability.isfutile:P (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Things do not just become notable on your say so. So which policy says that a school team getting to a county cup final makes the school notable? Fmph (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV BTW - love your edit history. GOLD BARNSTER FOR TROLLING AND TRYING TO DELETE EVERY SCHOOL PAGE IN THE UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totolatin (talk • contribs) 10:23, 26 April 2012‎

Please do not attack or insult other editors. The policy you've linked to (twice) states quite unequivocably that "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In what way do these sources provide such coverage? Yunshui 雲‍水 10:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isfutile:P, I note that you made a huge revert to the article in the last 12 hours claiming that "consensus is needed" before editing an article. Furthermore you claimed on my talk page that there is a rule against editing an article which is subject of an afd. I also note that you have made a number of additions to the article (without consensus), so I'm perplexed why you feel that a rule should apply to me but not to you! Could you explain which rule or policy justifies your actions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is actually happening is this: You are systemically trying to delete any citations which are gaining consensus for notability on the AfD page, from the article page, thereby subverting the discussion. Furthermore you are tag team edit warring and vandalizing the page with User:Fmph. Your intentions are clearly intent on deleting the page at all costs and your edit history(s) demonstrates that. The matter has been reported to ANI. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid I agree to some extent with the IP here. Whilst there isn't any rule that says you can't edit a page under AfD, given the (*ahem*) heated nature of the discussion here, removing sourced material was somewhat unwise. The sources in the article are fine for the purposes of verifying information; it's their suitabilty for showing notabiility that's under discussion. It might be best to avoid inflaming the issue further by removing them at this juncture. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - your quite happy with bullshit invented references from books and directory listings on your own page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_the_Registration_of_Schools_Teaching_Dyslexic_Pupils and on that articles talk page you argue "Third party mentions abound in Google" as a reason for notability. What double standards!!!!!!! However those are unacceptable here. WTF! Finally - I notice YOU are the creator of the CRESTED page, which started this all off. You didn't get rid of that link, to you are trying to get rid of the whole friggin page! DESPICABLE BEHAVIOR!!! You clearly have serious WP:COI issues and are not welcome here!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totolatin (talk • contribs) 10:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been an acceptable argument in AfDs. However, since you bring it up - yes, I did create the article on CReSTeD, after finding out about the charity at the Woodleigh School article (check the datestamps). The sources there are, I believe, valid, but I'm happy to discuss them at the AfD you started. My claim that "third party sources abound on Google" was in direct response to your statement that you could find no third-party sources - I was pointing out that they exist, and gave you a suggestion to help you search for them, not suggesting that their existence demonstrated notability.
And, for the record, I have no COI on this issue - I live hundreds of miles from Yorkshire, and had never heard of either the school or CReSTeD until I tried to help out a new editor at the Woodleigh School page. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards by nom editor and his buddies[edit]

Incredible double standards by these editors: [37] Look at this!!! The same editors doing exactly what the claim is not evidence of notability for the Woodleigh Page. Complaining about removing sources - when that's what they do. Claiming google results, adverts and directory listings are notable, the reverse of what the said for the Woodleigh page.

Council for the Registration of Schools Teaching Dyslexic Pupils[38] Council for the Registration of Schools Teaching Dyslexic Pupils (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • Stats) (Find sources: "Council for the Registration of Schools Teaching Dyslexic Pupils" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images) This page does not reach standard for notability or importance. AfD formatted correctly for User:Totolatin (talk/contribs) by Yunshui 雲‍水 11:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Keep (article creator). The four sources present in the article (if User:Totolin hasn't blanked them again recently) are, in my opinion, sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Much as I'd like to assume good faith, I also have to question the nominator's motive for this nomination, given his SPA-like edit history. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC) I see that the references have been blanked again. For the convenience of editors commenting on this AfD, here they are: Birnbaum, Ruth (2009). Choosing a School for a Child With Special Needs. Jessica Kingsley. p. 124. ISBN 9781843109877. Gabbitas Educational Consultants (2005). Schools for Special Needs: A Complete Guide. Kogan Page Ltd. p. 511. ISBN 9780749444099. Elaine Williams. "Education: Dyslexia goes independent". The Independent. Retrieved 26th April 2012. Reid, Gavin (2011). Dyslexia: A Complete Guide for Parents and Those Who Help Them. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781119973560. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC) In addition, coverage can be found at The Good Schools Guide], the Service Parents' Guide To Boarding Schools and Special Educational Needs Magazine. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Keep - reasonably notable organisation. Good sources. Seems to fulfil WP:GNG Fmph (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totolatin (talk • contribs)

  • Comment First of all can we please stop the shouting, e.g. "DISPICABLE BEHAVIOR!"; highly uncivil personal attacks, e.g. this; and accusations of vandalism when the edits are legitimate, albeit controversial, disagreements over content and/or sourcing. Second of all, Yunshui was not the editor who nominated this article for deletion, and has currently opined a merge rather than a delete. Nor has s/he participated in the recent editing/re-structuring of the article or removal of its references, and has in fact supported the suggestion that the original references and material remain for the duration of this discussion. Thirdly, I don't understand the determination to delete Council for the Registration of Schools Teaching Dyslexic Pupils simply to make a point when having an article on the Council is actually of benefit to the Woodleigh School article. This really has gone far enough, and I'm now going to ask a couple of uninvolved administrators to keep a close eye on this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems pretty clear to me that the references in the article confer notability. The trolling being conducted by certain individuals here is pretty disgusting. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiousity, could you be a little more specific as to where you're pointing your accusations of "trolling?" Your vote seems to imply that it is not being directed at the SPA telling everyone to "fuck off." Chillllls (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing trolling by both sides. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing evidence of "trolling" by either side (at least according to the definition here). What I am seeing are feelings running quite high and a lot of incivility and personal attacks as a result. I don't think adding accusations of "trolling" is helpful to improving the level of discourse. Voceditenore (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom and per continually affirmed belief that schools like this generally aren't notable pbp 17:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

I've begun a discussion about the civility issues here on ANI. --NYKevin @683, i.e. 15:23, 26 April 2012 (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/Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire&oldid=1087613134"