Talk:St Aubyns School

Started this page 21/12/2009. Any errors or ommissions are entirely to be expected and corrections where verifiable are most welcome. Additional factual information regarding the school would be appreciated, especially any pertaining to the school's history, including notable alumni and the school's association with Rottingdean.

Merge

No rationale has been given for this merge. A merge is quite inappropriate for a school of this nature which has so many notable alumni. Dahliarose (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is insufficient independent secondary source material for a stand alone article. The school can be adequately covered at the local settlement article including mention of the most famous alumni. There is no need to list all of them. That would be listcruft.--Charles (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge is not cleanup. If specific improvements are required to a page, then suggest those improvements (i.e., {{refimprove}}, if you think that's a problem). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What checks have you made for secondary source material? It is standard practice to include a list of notable alumni for all school articles. There is no reason to make a special exception for this school. The calibre of the alumni is such that an article for the school is warranted. Dahliarose (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean that following a merge just the most notable alumni will suffice.--Charles (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Most notable"? Doesn't sound very WP:N. Who is to judge who is more or less notable to justify inclusion in the target article? This results in a net loss of information. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a directory.--Charles (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that any alumni listed anywhere are not notable, then please feel free to indicate so and take appropriate action. "More" or "less" notable is not represented in policy. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For the most part, notability of the alumni listed would be established by them actually having a WP article. Since all those listed actually do have one, then I think it is perfectly fine to include those. As far as notability of the article subject itself, I am unsure. Will leave that up to others more familiar with the area. Is there more claim to notability though than just being around a long time? If there are more secondary sources to establish this, they should be put in. Otherwise, notability is not inherited simply because some notable people went there. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per Dahliarose and Danjel. An obviously notable school with abundant secondary sources available. Moonraker (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Notibility is not inherited from alumni. To be notable significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is required. The only sources here are standard inspection reports which all schools have. On that basis all primary and middle schools would be notable, but they are not. I am inclined to AfD this very poor article if it is not to be merged.--Charles (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The more alumni a school has the more likely it is to receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Perhaps you can help to find some sources. Taking this to AfD would be a waste of everyone's time. Dahliarose (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

More alumni

These additional alumni of St Aubyns are all listed in Who was Who:

• Ferdinand Faithfull Begg (1847-1926), Chairman of Edinburgh Stock Exchange
• Augustus Jack Christie (1963- ), Executive Chairman of Glyndebourne Productions
• Rear Admiral Michael Grant Goodenough (1904-1955), Assistant Chief of Naval Staff
• Captain John Montagu Howson (1893-1959)
• Captain John Shirley Sandys Litchfield (1903-1993), Director of Ops, Admiralty
• Air Commodore Richard Charles Montagu Pink CBE 1919 (1888-1932)
• Sir John Francis Prideaux (1911-1993) OBE

None of them currently have articles on Wikipedia though presumably all would probably merit an article. We could just add them to the alumni list without the articles. What do people think? Dahliarose (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a place for red links in articles to encourage new writing but this is not it. Red links are not allowed in lists of notables because by definition only people with a page are notable. Without that proviso there would be no end to listmaking. I help this helps.--Charles (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

But this is a small list within an article. We want to encourage people to write articles. Just because an article doesn't exist it doesn't mean that the people aren't notable. Without further investigation of sources I'm not clear at this stage how many of these people merit an article, but I would have thought most people who are in Who was Who would be worth an article. Dahliarose (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added John Kipling, who has a WP article and is the subject of a play. Esedowns (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Inspection

Why maintaining the sentence A press article described the school as having 'the intoxicating combination of small classes and a big heart" as this so called "press article" can be retrieved nowhere? Did a check but nothing comes up, only other pseudo-Wikipedias and copypastes of it that over and over again repeat the same. No source, then remove it, I would say. Naor (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)