Talk:Connie Talbot/Archive 1

AfD Result Notice
This article was the subject of an AfD discussion closed on 25 August 2007. The result was no consensus. Xoloz 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion
I have proposed this article for deletion because the subject does not meet the notability criteria for wikipedia.


 * (Have a heart) Please do not delete her entry, Connie Will become a star one day, she is an amazing prodigy of a voice, I would not have found her if not for Wikipedia! 02:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)160.96.200.34


 * If she becomes a star "one day", then on that day she can have a wikipedia entry. At the moment she is merely somebody who entered a talent contest.  Children do this every week.  The fact that this talent contest was televised does not make her a star.  Stardom and celebrity status does not come with merely appearing on a television quiz show.  If she was notable in her own right she would not have needed to be on a television talent contest.  It is not about having a heart it is about realising where she is in the pecking order of notability right now.  And right now, she's about as notable as my pet goldfish.  87.127.44.154 06:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your pet goldfish is unknown. NOT Notable. Connie is known worldwide and is a topic of discussion, articles, photos, videos, and has been honored by many people who are also notable. I, like a few million other people, found the information about Connie on Wikipedia - and was glad I did! If the article is removed, and people come to Wikipedia and can NOT find information on Connie, I think that will reflect negatively on Wikipedia's reputation for being a source of information that people want to find. 209.173.108.133 15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the both of you to an extent. Granted, Connie did not win first place at the talent contest but she is after all still a hit at Youtube.com, don't forget that. If "Bus Uncle"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_uncle) warrants an article when the video only has 1.7 million hits, then Connie's video, with 9 MILLION hits, is very noteworthy indeed. Let the article STAAAY. Clockword 09:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article on Bus Uncle is there because of reliable sources, not directly because of YouTube hits. However, I now feel that she is notable, because of the two minute record deal she had. Would be nice if someone could sort out the article a little though. J Milburn 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

She still has a record deal, and is releasing an album which is likely to chart in June 2008. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.138.150 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's absolutely no question that the article shouldn't be deleted now. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I also believe it should be deleted. Giving an 8-year old this kind of pretensious attention is utterly ridiculous and the article has an air of personal contribution rather than an objective one. Pushy parents or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.220.62 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a featured article, it's not going to be deleted. I wrote the article- I have no link with Talbot (I didn't even vote for her in the series) and, personally, I get the impression that Talbot's parents aren't pushy at all. They cancel appearances and always stress that they'll only carry on while Connie is enjoying it. What part of the article do you feel is not adhering to a neutral point of view? J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost 3 years to the date and Special:Contributions/92.12.220.62|92.12.220.62 never replied to J. Milburn's question. Being up to date with who is notable is a major strength of this encyclopedia.

1archie99 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Note the editor who started this section did not show the courtesy of signing or dating the proposal which I believe should have been a red flag at the outset.1archie99 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but she is now nearly 14 and she deserves a page for her. She is world-famous, and has gone on the Ellen show. She worked hard to rise to fame, and therefore she should have a page, and this page shouldn't be deleted. Dreamfigure (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Six years after this thread was started, it's obvious that Connie Talbot is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Hey  mid  (contribs) 05:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability concerns
I am not certain she is notable in her own right, and believe all available information should be merged back to Britain's Got Talent. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? Has she done anything outside of that programme, or have any news stories been written about her and her alone? J Milburn 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think she deserves her own article for the same reason that American Idol winners get their own article. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 08:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Except she lost 84.9.37.253 23:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note she's also notable for her extremely young age, which is what many media stories about her in the news focus on. Most people known for singing ability are not anywhere near as young (she's only six) when they first became famous. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * She got to the semi-final, and she's only six. Also, Simon Cowell agreed to sign a 7-figure record contract for her. I think it's a bit different from similar concerns with a baby who plays a character on Neighbours, and editors were saying that he wasn't notable for an article; a baby can't act out of their own will, wheras it's very different with Connie Talbot. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * i think the whole point is to have information for people seeking it and i came here looking for information on her not on BGT, at least for the forseable future her own entry is warranted--taucetiman


 * I second the last comment - I was looking for information specific to her - not the show


 * I agree 100% with the last two comments.200.254.233.194 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * At the end of a day, she entered a contest, which she did not win; and she may have been "offered" a big recording contract but that was subsequently withdrawn (the words "Publicity Stunt" spring to mind. This person has not achieved anything but has simply appeared on a television programme and is therefore not notable enough for her own entry.  87.127.44.154 12:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * BIG KEEP: Is she notable? I looked up the definition online and found:  "NOTABLE: noteworthy: worthy of notice ... luminary: a celebrity who is an inspiration to others ... celebrated: widely known and esteemed." It appears to me that a 6 year old girl who makes it to the finals in a competition that is almost totally adults and gets a recording contract (regardless of whether it was canceled) is notable. I think it is also clear from the numbers of hits that the world thinks she is notable. Her accomplishments at her age have made her highly notable - and worthy of honor. I will also be surprised if we do not see more of her in the future. 209.173.108.133 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we have our own definition of notability, and on top of the main one, we have more specific ones that may apply- for musicians and for people in general. However, we have an additional, more complex rule- we are not a news service. (That link is to an essay- see point five of this for the policy on the subject.) Basically, we have to determine whether she is notable independent of Britain's Got Talent. Is she notable in her own right? There seems to be a mix opinion on this. Probably, the record deal and the press surrounding it makes her so, but the Britain's Got Talent appearance has no effect on the matter directly. J Milburn 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that, though she did not win the competition, she is notable, as she is now a household name throughout the United Kingdom and beyond. Congratulations didn't win the Eurovision Song Contest, yet has an article.  She's as notable now as Darius Danesh was when he lost a similar talent competition.  To delete this page would be, quite simply, wrong. JPBarrass 10:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Fame" and "notability" are not the same thing. And to equate loosing a talent contest to an award-winning number one single (pan-European) by one of Britain's most successful artists is just plain bizarre! B1atv 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fresh Concern: October 2007

 * I've just done a Google search and there are no new sources about this artist, apart from a news site which mentions her in passing in an article about Paul Potts . And that mention is further reference to the final of Britain's Got Talent.  The original afd discussion was no consensus.  Two months on is there anything which might help bring consensus? Is there anything which suggests that she is notable TODAY?  B1atv 12:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted J Milburn's removal of the notability tag. There are still concerns.  The afd debate ended with no consensus.  Since then NO new sources have been added to the article.  Last week (see note above) I flagged up a request for further sources asking the same question - is she notable?  Somebody appearing in a television talent show isn't notable.  Somebody ALMOST having a record deal, isn't notable (see Wikipedia's policy on the notability of musicians.  And since the show and the publicity-stunt record deal there have been no more mentions of her.  As far as the news media is concerned she is a "wannabe" turned into a "has-been" who has never been an "in thing".  Fame - especially temporary fame - and notability are not the same thing.  If no new sources to suggest notability now come to light I will renominate as an AFD.  B1atv 06:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are four sources in the article. The last two are about her specifically. Yes, she failed in her record deal, but these are reliable, third party sources about her, and are not directly linked to the show. These two sources alone are enough to keep an article, plus the articles mentioning her in relation to the show, and the other articles about her failed record deal. Finally, a third type of minor mention will no doubt come up when the press discusses the upcoming series, as she was one of the 'highlights' of last series. I don't read that kind of paper, so I wouldn't honestly know if they are doing so and what they are saying, but I am pretty convinced that while this failed record deal, combined with her entry in Britain's Got Talent, does not make her notable, but the press surrounding both events does. J Milburn 17:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * References about what somebody did in the past in newspapers about something different do not make a person notable. Read the general notability guidelines in Notability to see what I mean.  The fact is that those four sources were available when this article failed to reach consensus at afd - nothing has changed since then to prove that notability is likely to happen any time soon.  B1atv 23:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, she signed a record deal last week with (coincidentally enough) Rainbow Recoding Company. --Kmsiever 22:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that establishes beyond doubt that she is notable- more press has become available, and she is currently signed. I will add that information to the article, and remove the tag. J Milburn 08:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Record Deal
{'''nb: The following discussion transferred from my user-talk page. ''' B1atv 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

I have boldly removed the notability tag from the article again, after someone showed a reliable source talking about a new record deal she signed last week, which I added to the article. I have also cleaned up the article significantly, so that everything is sourced, so I think I have removed all BLP concerns. As such, I believe the only remaining problem with the article is that it is a stub, and it is marked as such. Have you any thoughts on the matter? J Milburn 10:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * After consulting another editor, I have re-added the tag until we have reached a consensus either on the talk page, or via AfD. J Milburn 10:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the Express and Star story cited in the article a few days ago, and I was going to add this as a source myself; but that article is a re-write of an article which was in the previous day's Sunday Mirror newspaper. The Sunday Mirror newspaper quoted nobody from the record company and only Connie's parents; the Express and Star story had no quotes other than that which appeared in the Sunday Mirror.  I didn't add the story to the article because it didn't add up.  To start with, there is no Rainbow Recording Company.  It doesn't exist. WP:Music refers to an artist having an album released through a notable label so I checked to see if Rainbow was notable and couldn't find a single trace of it.  The closest is Rainbow Records Ltd  which, according to Companies House (the UK register of companies) is dormant.  The fact that the supposed "five-figure deal" is with a record company for which there was no trace prior to signing the "deal" and whose name is similar to the song with which she sang on Britain's Got Talent leads me to believe it is a vanity publishing outfit started by the parents themselves or by somebody close to them.  I'm not knocking that approach, but it doesn't add to notability.  The facts are that the Sunday Mirror reported "exclusively" that Connie Talbot has signed this five-figure deal and that an album will be out in November, but no other national newspaper has followed up the story.  The two local papers - the Express and Star and the Sutton Observer have repeated the Sunday Mirror story but, again, there are no quotes from the record company - only the parents.  No record company would sign an artist like this and leave publicity to the parents.  More than a week after the story first appeared there are no other sources to back up the story and nothing at all on "Rainbow Recording Company" other than the small handful of articles stemming from the Sunday Mirror article on Connie Talbot.
 * I'm not saying that this development should not be included in the article - quite clearly it should. But it doesn't add to credibility of Connie Talbot.  Obviously, if the album charts that would be different, but right now I can't seen anything has really changed to add notability since the previous afd discussion.
 * However, this deal does lend limited credibility to the idea that notability may be just around the corner. So I'll hang off a second referral to afd at this point; but reserve the right to do so should this "deal" turn out to be a hoax or a vanity-recording. B1atv 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

{'''nb: The above discussion transferred from my user-talk page. ''' B1atv 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Gosh, you argue an excellent case. I suspect that the album will recieve a load of reviews once it is released, at which point we can start to treat her like any other musician. However, until then, we can leave the notability tag. J Milburn 12:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A new wave of coverage has arrived- I saw this article today. (For the record, I read The Guardian, hate the Daily Mail, and saw this over someone's shoulder.) I haven't got much time now, but I will try and work as much of the Daily Mail article into this article as possible. -- J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Streetly -v- Sutton Coldfield
Before these edits turn into an revert-war, the Sutton Coldfield Observer, the newspaper covering the locality where Connie Talbot lives, describes her as coming from Streetly. Other news services describe her school as being in Streetly. Sutton Coldfield is a suburb of Birmingham. Streetly is a suburb of Walsall. Neither Streetly nor Sutton Coldfield residents are particularly happy about being suburbs of their greater towns but that's how it is. People locally may therefore refer to Streetly and the Streetly area as being Sutton (being considered more posh than being from Walsall) but it isn't Sutton, just very close to it. 87.127.44.154 06:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is actually somewhat incorrect. Whilst Streetly is indeed within the administrative area of Walsall MBC, the official post town for Streetly is Sutton Coldfield. DWaterson (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
Can anyone tell me why there's a banner on the article page suggesting that it is not neutral and which suggests reading the discussion about it, yet there is no discussion? As far as I can see, there is nothing in the article which is not neutral. Therefore, I propose that this banner be removed. JPBarrass 10:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since neutrality is covered in the following biography banner, I shall remove its own banner, as it serves only to duplicate issues. JPBarrass 10:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the edits and the article for discussion debate I think the neutrality concerns arose because of the arguments being used by editors to advance the "keep" argument (ie, have a heart, she will be big one day, etc). These imply, to me at least, that people are not approaching this subject from a neutral point of view but out of a desire to promote (or because their heart-strings have been touched in a "ah, isn't she cute" type way).  I don't think the article as it stands is biased and support the removal of the neutrality template.  Whoever put the template up didn't give a reason here and hasn't responded to your concerns.  B1atv 12:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article is in any way negative. It should be looked at as a history. It is not a fan forum where absolutely nothing negative is ever allowed. WikiPedia often comes under attack from fans who take a very dim view of anything negative. They have probably been conditioned by being a member of a celebrity controlled forum where everything is always butterflys and roses and thorns and crabgrass are never allowed. Over time the artist will emerge above any negative reviews. Even the greats of music received negative reviews from time to time. It is just a footnote in their history. Reasonable74 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Basic Common Sense
You don't put the name of a 7 year olds school on the internet. Especially not in the same article that states that her parents have had to hire a bodyguard to keep her safe. THINK. Sean. S3an0h (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. We don't hide information, as per the fact that Wikipedia is not censored, and it is already on the internet, as shown by the fact that it was well referenced. If the Daily Mirror will report it, why can't we? J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * REMOVED. See BLP and BLP. This information has no place here. Exxolon (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification. It's appropiate to mention she's attending primary school (that information was already in the lead section and I didn't remove it), but not the actual school. Exxolon (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read the sections you linked to (as I have the whole policy page reasonably recently) and I still feel that there is a place for this information. It has been published in a good source, and I feel that it is not overly personal- I support the removal of, say, home addresses in the majority of cases, but this is just the same as saying where someone works, which I think would be supported in the majority of cases when the information is public and well sourced. I also believe the information is of interest- especially to people studying that area or school specifically. I think the reason that people are opposed to this is the age of the subject- I would personally argue that a balanced, neutral encyclopedia would cover all people fairly and equally, no matter their age, religion, gender, race or whatever. I welcome the thoughts of others on this issue. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As we are obviously coming from fairly opposed viewpoints here I suggest we ask for more editors to contribute to this discussion. I will dump some links in places and see who turns up. Exxolon (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally I don't see the reason to have her hometown and type of school attendance mentioned in the lead. It's in the personal info section which is the appropiate place and her hometown is in the infobox too. Why do you feel it should be in the lead?Exxolon (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is meant to be a summary of everything in the article- I think a brief mention of how Talbot spends 99% of her life is appropriate. A good lead should cover everything mentioned- not mentioning anything from the personal life section (especially when such a mention couldn't be neglected if giving an overview of who Talbot is) would be inappropriate. I support requesting the opinions of others on this matter. J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally don't really see it as that important to the article and for privacy reason it's probably best to leave it out. Do we have any sources other then the Daily Mirror (note that I'm not disputing the accuracy, simply wondering how widespread it is)? Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 333 Google hits for "Connit Talbot" Blackwood. Reliable sources among these include four from the local paper, one from Digital Spy, a perhaps reliable local site, a more reliable looking local site, and another small paper and a sackload of forums/fansites- official and otherwise. I think it's even mentioned in a press release. And, I repeat what was said elsewhere- Talbot's publicists have seen this article, and they had no concern over that mention. They did have concern about some things, which were then fixed, but not that. I don't see why it's fair game for everyone to say this apart from us. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just because the news reports something, that doesn't mean it's always appropriate for wikipedia. Listing the current school of a child is just inappropriate and unnecessary. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, why? Will people stop pulling out the "oh God, think of the children!" bullshit and actually point to some policies? This has been reported all over the place- why should our coverage be incomplete when we have plenty of great sources? J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I already have pointed out policy - BLP and BLP - my interpretation of them is that this kind of information falls under these policy sections. As for reasons not to include the information - I fail to see how including the exact school improves the article. Also WP:SCHOOLS has a broad range of support that only secondary or higher schools are notable - if the school itself isn't notable, neither is her attendance of it. We also routinely delete information from user pages that discloses the exact real world location of minors - I fail to see why an article should be different. Exxolon (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not see those policies as particularly relevant- this information, as I said above, is already very public, and so I don't see us removing it as protecting Talbot's privacy particular. The second point is ridiculous- that's like saying 'the person who produced the album is not notable, therefore the fact that he produced the album isn't notable'. I'm not saying the school is notable- I'm just saying that the fact she attends it is an important part of her life (as per common sense) and is of interest to us as encyclopedists, as shown by the reliable sources. And this information is different from the kind of thing we (and I) routinely remove from userpages, as this has already been written in various reliable sources, and so it already known- unlike this stuff that kids post on their userpages, not realising what they are doing. J Milburn (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked for admin assistance - not because I necessarily believe you are wrong but I'd like some experienced users with a good understanding of how WP:BLP functions in practice to help. Exxolon (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether someone's an admin doesn't (shouldn't) affect the weight of their arguments in content discussions. I've been an admin for over a year, I see you don't want to be one- it's not particularly important. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I thought you were saying something you weren't- ignore the above comment. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it's not so much their admin status in itself, more that you can reasonably expect editors who've acheived it have a fair amount of experience under their belt and a reasonable understanding of both the theory and practical application of our policies - it's a shortcut. Exxolon (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unident. I believe their are three parts of the BLP policy that would dictate against inclusion:


 * 1) -"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy...An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'."
 * 2) -"Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so"
 * 3) -"In a similar vein, Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons"

While there may be a case to argue, I think these three statements do back up my stance on this matter. Exxolon (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And, naturally, I don't.
 * I do not see how writing the name of the school, when it has already been published all over the web, and is even mentioned (though maybe not by name, I don't remember) on her official website, will do any harm.
 * I'm no lawyer, but this seems perfectly legal to me (as well as to the editors of at least two British newspapers). As for ethical, that's a little too subjective, but Talbot's publicists certainly didn't seem to believe it unethical.
 * This isn't contact information, in the same way that a home village, university someone teaches at or business someone works for isn't contact information, and I would say any of them would belong in (and can be found in) a Wikipedia biography. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got a question. Would adding the name of the school she attends really add much to the article?  Because, if it doesn't, it should stay out.  That goes for everything in every article ever, not just BLPs.  lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as much as her hometown adds to it, and I really don't think we should be removing the name of her hometown. Reliable sources seem to believe it is relevant, and who are we to argue with them? J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, because it's just as easy to find one girl in a town of some hundreds of thousands as it is to find her in a primary school with fewer than 200 kids, isn't it? Oh, wait, no it isn't. If this was my child I would kick up seven kinds of shit if anyone posted the name of the school. Let's not be dicks here. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. How does this addition possibly add to the article? This should be crystal clear under the do no harm bit of WP:BLP. Having another source that doesn't know where to draw the line is no reason for inclusion. Kevin (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Guy, the school's already been published. No one got "seven kinds of shit" kicked out of them, nor am I going to call the editors of national newspapers dicks- frankly, I'm going to trust their judgment a little more than that of someone who makes a hobby of insulting volunteers on the Internet. Kevin, this adds to the article just as much as any other information which isn't directly related to her singing- do you support removing absolutely everything not directly linked to her claim to fame? J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's suggesting we should remove the town she lives in; that's far less specific, and therefore less potentially problematic. That's the nature of any situation where we have to balance conflicting priorities: degrees matter. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, the name of the school is out there, in some sources. If people really want to dig for it, let them.  That doesn't mean we have to publish it here on one of the highest profile websites in the world.  I wonder how many of those who favour inclusion have children of their own?  If you were to put the name of your child's school on Facebook, say, you'd most likely have a letter from the school advising you to remove it ASAP, especially since there is absolutely no legitimate reason whatsoever why any reader of Wikipedia should need to know the name of the school attended  by a seven-year-old child.  That which interests the public, is not necessarily in the public interest.  Guy (Help!) 22:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I am more likely to trust the editor of a national newspaper on what is "in the public interest" and what it is generally accepted to be ethical/legal to report than you. Not to mention the fact that you can't compare posts on Facebook to newspaper articles- they are completely different sorts of publications. In any case, I have already said below that I am 'backing down', so to speak, so what's this? Are you just looking for a scrap, throwing around insults and making ridiculous comparisons? Grow up. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that question. What does the name of the school add? Absent some importance, I'm inclined to favor privacy for a minor. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. It seems that no one agrees with my position. I appreciate that some people are willing to actually provide some arguments for what they say rather than throwing around abuse. Obviously, I respect consensus, and this seems a pretty clear consensus so I am happy to leave the name out of the article for now. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an old resolved topic now but I would just like to add a footnote for those interested. On the adjunct WikiAnswers site the Connie Talbot thread makes no mention of the town Connie Talbot lives in. It just refers to her living near Birmingham in the West Midlands of England where ever the topic comes up. The name of her school past or present isn't given anywhere on that thread. The name of Connie's schooI was widely reported by newspapers when Connie was six, much to the chagrin of her parents. Since that time and with subsequent year level changes the name of her school hasn't been published information. As far as I know her parents still have her in the public school system. Reasonable74 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)