Talk:Cardinal Langley Roman Catholic High School

Sixth formers in the news
I'd like to propose removing the following paragraph from the Comprehensive section:

In December 2000, three sixth formers were jailed at Minshull Street Crown Court for four years each for the robbery of £400 from a Manchester businessman using a replica gun.

Whilst this may have been a sad indictment on the state of the school in the year 2000, it no longer appears to be relevant.—GrahamSmith (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this paragraph should be removed, as it is really off-topic from the subject "Cardinal Langley Roman Catholic High School". Unless reliable sources can be brought that show that this event has had a lasting effect on on the school, it needs to be removed per WP:UNDUE.  I will remove the paragraph and direct editors to this Talk page.    15:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally events that occur at the school are relevant (say, students arson a schoolbuilding), but this isn't at all related to the school. tedder (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This would be the paragraph that 84.45.222.192 has been edit-warring for the past couple of months to get rid off, without deigning to give any explanation, or join in any meaningful discussion on the matter. It would have been instructive to hear his reasons, though he’s blocked at the moment (for edit warring!)
 * As for the paragraph itself, my objection to its removal was solely to the above-mentioned edit warring; if Graham (and now Zad and Tedder) feel it is out of place I’m not going to argue to keep it. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Alumni
I've re-arranged the Alumni section, as it wasn't up to standard. First, all entries should be notable; as a rule of thumb, that means they should have their own WP page. It is a sad comment on the WP that a CBE and a couple of University professors are less notable than a couple of musicians in a not-very-well-known band, but there you are... Second, the entries need to be in some order. I've gone with chronological, but anyone else has a better idea, they should bring it along here. Third, there should be some eviidence these people actually attended the school. Putting in the years they attended (in place of the year of birth, for preference) would be a start. Comments? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)