Talk:Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire/Archive 2

Concerns about inappropriate wp:trivia and redundant use of sources in this article
I'm concerned by this section about an educational playing-card game developed by persons at the school:

''In 2008 the school developed an educational card game to aid the teaching of nutrition. .''


 * All four sources are from The Grocer, a trade magazine for the food retail and production industry. Three of the articles I was able to verify had the same author. All of the articles say virtually the same thing (including the bit at the end begging for money). Why bother including four references when one of them would do? (sources are redundant)
 * The Grocer is not a WP:RS for educational matters, nor is it a reliable WP:MEDRS for nutritional information. Using it as such is inappropriate.
 * It's clear from a close reading of these (very dull) articles that they are actually trying to promote a commercial enterprise of which Mr. England (the school's headmaster) is a shareholder. Anybody familiar with local news-media content will recognize this as an example of an advertorial, and therefore a WP:QS (questionable source).
 * As we know now the business was not a success - the cards were never produced and as far as we know the only children ever to have played this game are certain students at Mr. England's school. The project was not notable in any significant way.
 * Did "the school" develop it? The text is misleading - the sources show that it was the invention of one man: Mr England, the Headmaster. It was an idea which occurred to him rather than a student project.

Finally, (and this is just my personal, non-policy-based opinion). Mentioning this kind of trivia in the main section of the article this looks plain odd. We are talking about a school which has existed for almost 90 years. Can we really, honestly say that one of the school's most noteworthy achievements is a failed Top Trumps clone? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Re points - do you know any of that or is it your personal assumption? Just asking - if there's clear evidence that is was commercial, developed by the Head alone, that is was a failure and the cards were never produced - then by all means remove the material. isfutile:P (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tony, It's all in the sources. The article "Trump That" describes the moment that England invented the game. The same article outlines the structure of the company England founded (He was an 85% shareholder). We know it was a commercial failure because we have a record of articles asking for investment but no subsequent articles announcing the launch of a product. I'm not going to delete the content as we are in the middle of an revert-war right now... let's reach a consensus here and make our edits later. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read the article and it says ""But the children said this didn't look very nice and asked if we could make lots of cards. They then started to compare each other's products. So the logical step was to turn it into a game." I've tried to condense that for clarity on the article page. I don't think any assumption can be made regarding the success or failure without an article with that information. If such as source were to turn up, that would be useful. Reading the whole issue of the Grocer, it becomes clear that the project was part of the "year of food and farming" which was a government initiative to provide (inter alia) free resources to schools. Therefore it is very unlikely it would have been a commercial operation in the profit making sense since that would have invalidated it from that initiative. The magazine on the school's own website also suggests this. isfutile:P (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really hard to determine the exact sequence of events that led to it's "invention" - I dislike using that word in this context because the game of top-trumps was invented about thirty years earlier by somebody unrelated to Woodleigh school. That's actually the least of my concerns. Please refer to my new comment below:

Card Game section re-written
The text currently reads:

''In 2008 the school developed an educational card game to aid the teaching of nutrition. Pupils created cards to help them learn about the properties of food,[29] and the Headteacher helped develop this into a Top Trumps style game. The Grocer magazine helped promote the project which aimed to distribute the game free to every school in the country as part of the national "Year of Food and Farming."[30]''

I think this is a very good summary of the sources. It's very clear that The Grocer was not simply reporting on this game (as they would do a regular news-article), they were helping Mr. England obtain funding for a commercial project. This explains why we have three (possibly four) almost identical articles by the same author. It was part of an campaign to promote the game. In other words it was WP:ADVERTISING. This also allows us to make sense of articles like "Momentum building to get card game into every school", which are so obviously promotional in tone.

We can be very sure that no momentum ever built: We cannot find any further articles, lesson-plans, product codes, sales-records or anything else relating to this product. If a product like this were distributed to every school we might even expect a mention in the TES or some other educational journal, but we have nothing. It's as if the project expired along with the year of farming.

In summary - what we have here is a short-lived, failed business venture of which we can find no record of being used outside of one school. This is trivia, nothing more. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's bare assertion, a statement not backed up by any facts, and probably a fiction created to fit your agenda. I really do suspect you are a troll. If not then why can you not back up anything you say by FACT, not insinuation, supposition, rumour, or a guess - but fact? Please stop writing fiction, this is an encylopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.125.63 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A question, do you know the brand name or trademark of this playing-card product? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No I don't nor do I know if one even exists. If you find such a thing I'd be most interested to discuss it. 213.246.125.63 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is possible that the product was never named. I'm sure you agree that if this game had been launched or marketed to schools then it must have had a name. If the product had not been named then it could never have been launched or marketed. Would you be willing to draw a tentative conclusion from the conspicuous absence of any source containing this information? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

More sources
Here are some more sources, from the Yorkshire Post. Note - I'm leaving these for other editors to discuss. I'm not going to make any further discussions until the matter goes to AFD. I would like to thank those who have worked hard to turn the article into an attractive and well written piece. ,, isfutile:P (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Epic trip to let dancers tread the boards" - this seems to be a good-quality article about a project of Mr. England's. I do not think we could use this to establish notability however it's definitely something we could use in a section about the current headmaster. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Parents keep pupils from schools in fear over Sars" - this article is not substantially about Woodleigh school. I do not think we could use it for anything.
 * "Entrepreneur pupils get thousands to invest" - This appears to be a reference to the EdStats card game. If so, it shows that the card game was some sort of student-run business. It also shows that the game was developed in 2007 (not 2008 as the article currently states). I'm still not convinced we should be talking about the EdStats project at all, given that it seems to be something akin to a Young Enterprise programme - it's a very common thing in British Schools and not in the least bit remarkable. If we found some source that indicated the project was a commercial success I would be delighted to revise my opinion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do any of the people who are editing this article live locally? If so a trip to your local library would be a good idea. There will no doubt be a number of local books and sources in which this school is mentioned. Dahliarose (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dyslexia and SEN
I'm not happy with the supporting refs for the dyslexia support facilities on offer. We know that the school is no longer a member of Crested, and yet a photocopy/scanned version of the crested report from 2008, hosted on the school's own website is being used to support series assertions in the text. These assertions have serious advertorial implications. The other reference used is a promotional page on the school's website. This is a business, let's not forget. I don't believe the references are independent or reliable and should be removed.Fmph (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually think the combination of the two sources is okay for that statement. The 2012 version of the school's website indicates that they currently have a SEN Unit, whilst the CReSTeD report provide independent confirmation of the fact. The article isn't stating or implying that the school is a member of CReSTeD, only that it has a unit for dyslexic pupils. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2008 CReSTeD report may be OK as a source for describing the state of its SEN facilities and the types of disabilities it could support 4 years ago . However, it's not crucial as reference, does nothing to establish the school's notability, and it may well not reflect current provision. Thus it's potentially confusing/misleading. The report is available on the school's website, I don't see any compelling reason to use at as reference, especially since there's also this reference which lists it as a recommended school for mainstream SEN teaching. Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The age of the information is a valid point, particularly since the school's website still lists it as a CReSTeD member (which as the thousands of bytes expended on this talkpage previously show, it isn't). That suggest they haven't updated their listings for quite a while. It just sounds faintly ridiculous to have an article stating "the school had a SEN unit in 2008, but who knows whether it's still there or not..." I would, however, be happy to retain this information even if it were only sourced to the school website, per WP:SELFPUB; the charge that it's advertising is pretty thin. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 22:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is sourced to the school website as far as I can see. isfutile:P (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and what Yunshui and I are saying is that is sufficient. The use of the out-of-date CReSTeD report as a reference is unnecessary and potentially misleading. The other two references are not only redundant overkill, but also misleading. The entries on both goodschoolsguide.co.uk and isbi.com are not independent sources. They're derived from the school's own website and/or material submitted by the school. Both entries also claim the school has CReSTeD accreditation/membership which is no longer true. Voceditenore (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Me again, that pesky CReSTeD Administrator: I have been silent on the subject for a few weeks but I have to add a comment now, under instructions from the Chairman of CReSTeD - my boss. We strongly resent the inclusion of any reference to out of date material as regards registration with CReSTeD. The report cited refers to a visit conducted 4 years ago and, yes, the school was re-registered, however, as part of our mechanism for maintaining standards, we insist on schools being revisited every 3 years. The school declined to be re-visited, I must emphasise that point, we were more than happy to send a consultant along to re-assess their provision. I am totally at a loss as to how you expect me to prove this, I can refer you to the CReSTeD website which contains an up to date list of schools which are currently registered or you can ring us, the phone number is on the website. Anyone requesting a copy of the Register printed last summer receives addenda of schools leaving and joining since it was printed, trust me Woodleigh are on the list of schools who have left, better yet, use the contact us page on the website and anyone can have a copy - free of charge, it's what we do! I know the school is currently claiming to be on the register on it's own website, I promise you I am doing everything I possibly can to rectify that situation. I have previously stated we do not have a dispute with the school and that has been the case but, in the interests of fairness and clarity, I should say that if they don't update their website soon the CReSTeD board are not going to be as nice as they have been. I am asking as nicely as I know how, please remove the citation which references an out of date report. Parents have enough trouble finding a good school for a dyslexic child, they need to be able to trust the objective standards CReSTeD upholds, we can only be sure those standards are maintained if schools are revisited.Lesleyfarrar (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see where CReSTeD is specifically mentioned anymore. It simply says they have support in place; doesn't claim to be certified/registered.  I don't think the photocopy of the old CReSTeD report is a very good source; to support the statement that's in the article, the source need only mention their support program. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If a parent followed the link in the citation it takes them to the school website. With a few tweaks they go through to the "About" page where it states the school are CReSTeD registered. It might be 2+2=5 but none the less it could happen, after all I follow Wikipedia links all the time, don't you? Parents may not know schools have to be revisited every 3 years but they might, for instance, know that their local authority or the Armed Services will only fund a placement for dyslexia if the school is registered with CReSTeD - to avoid any cynical response to that (as in earlier discussions when we were accused of trying to make monetary gain from the Register): CReSTeD provides the Regsiter to parents free of charge, we do not gain income from local authorities, the armed services or parents. The parent gets their hopes up, only to have them dashed. A parent could do more research, with a few more tweaks, and eventually read through our criteria and find their way to the schools list. In so doing they would not find Woodleigh School listed. Can't we just save people (who are often at their wits end) all that time and effort and delete the citation, please? Parents of a dyslexic child need this service and they need to be able to rely on the information we give them. The least I can do is try to ensure the references they find to CReSTeD, however indirect the citation might be, are valid - it's my job. Lesleyfarrar (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing Wikipedia can do about what the school says; we're certainly not going to remove links to the school because of a dispute between that school and some external agency. This is a matter between your agency and the school. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lesley - Woodleigh School is not a WP:RS for information about Crested status. My advice to Lesley, If you are indeed an administrator of Crested, you can create a page on your agency's site listing schools which incorrectly claim registration. That could be used as a source or used to prove that WS are not a reliable source for this kind of information.
 * I note with concern that we are still linking to the 2008 Crested report. Why are we still doing this when we have very good reason to suspect that this status has expired. We are potentially misleading readers. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the reference to CReSTed is actually needed to reference the statements in the text so I see no reason why it can't be removed if it is misleading. Wikipedia has to rely on secondary sources, so it would be best if we could cite a page on the CReSTed website to show that the school is no longer a member. We can't cite the absence of the school from the database as that would be original research. The independent schools website is also citing the incorrect affiliation: http://www.independentschools.com/england/woodleigh-school_386.html Dahliarose (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's strong evidence that we are dealing with unreliable sources. We must take additional care and not cite sources which have the potential to mislead. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As the Administrator to CReSTeD I have contacted all the agencies cited in the article where a reference is made to CReSTeD membership and asked them to update their database. I have contacted the school and asked them to remove the references. I can do no more. As of this moment in time I repeat we are not in conflict with the school. The school said it didn't want to re-register we were and still are more than happy to send a consultant to perform a review. I was trying to be honest and open in my last comment by stating that if the schools don't make the changes we have asked for then the Council might decide enough is enough. You really do not appreciate how difficult it is for parents to find the right school. If you were sat in my chair dealing with the realities rather than commenting on whether these citations are appropriate or not this conversation would not be carrying on. Someone has suggested I amend the CReSTeD article. I don't think I would dare. I will now attempt to a)find out how to amend the CReSTeD article and b) find out how to register my distress at the abuse I feel I have personally received at the keyboard of some wikipedia users. I have not engaged in an edit war. I removed the reference in all honesty. When it reappeared I thought I had done something incorrectly and removed it again. Since then I have honoured the request to leave the citation alone whilst others make decisions. Lesleyfarrar (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we might have a crucial clarification. Could you give an idea when the school decided not to reregister? It seems to be inferred that it was some years ago. If so, as another editor points out the other sources would be affected. If however it was some days ago, then perhaps it would be understandable that not every source had yet been updated. More information would be useful.isfutile:P (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tony, are you seriously asking Lesley to to tell you when something didn't happen? --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @ isfutile:P (Tony). Since according to CReSTeD an inspection visit is required minimally every three years to renew registration, and the last one was on April 28, 2008, a visit would have been required by April 28, 2011, i.e., over a year ago. It's rather immaterial when or why the school chose not to have the required visit when the time became due, although they must have clearly known that in the absence of a visit their registration would lapse. I think a year is plenty of time for them to update their own site (which currently fudges the issue by hosting the old report as part of the "Parents' Pack" while not actually claiming current registration by CReSTeD) and their listing on directory sites for which they provide the information about their own school such as goodschoolsguide.com (where they still claim CReSTeD membership). I don't think the old CReSTeD report or the goodschoolsguide.com listing belong as references. The former is at best highly misleading and the latter is wrong. Besides, the directory listing is not indepedendent of the school, and the fact that simple listings in directories are not done on a selective basis makes them useless with respect to establishing notability. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources used for this section are in fact very misleading. I cannot find any reference which states that the school has a specific learning difficulties unit. The most recent OFSTED report merely states that "14 pupils have special educational needs and/or disabilities associated with dyslexia, dyscalculia and dyspraxia". The directory-style entries are somewhat misleading because they are now out of date, which is presumably why they still include the CReSTeD affiliation. The OFSTED report and the newspaper article appear to be the only reliable sources that can be cited. Dahliarose (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Even the school's website doesn't call it a "Unit". They call it a "Learning Support Department". I've been bold and copyedited the article to reflect that and removed all citations to the directory listings and the CReSTeD report. I've left in citations to the school's own page on its Learning Support Department and the newspaper article, although even there, the information is a quote from the headmaster. Voceditenore (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this was the right move. This issue has gone on for too long. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC):
 * Consensus was agreed to keep the Crested ref. See top of this page. The school's website and the Ofsted mention dyspraxia so that should not have been redacted. The comment re the independent schools ranking is subjective and not neutral. It also reads like original research. The cite to GSG is a reliable source and should not have been removed.As have suggested in other places on this page, if other editor believe a source is unreliable then sent the source to WP RS forum and let them decide. Editing on subjective grounds is too likely to lead to an edit war - which hopefully we all want to avoid. isfutile:P (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, and several editors here have recently opinined that the references to the Crested report and the out of date (self-published) directory entry in the Good Schools Guide are both misleading and inaccurate. The material about the school's SEN provision in the GSG was provided by the school. It is not one of the schools that has been independently reviewed by the Guide. The entry there makes all this quite explicit. The text in the footnote about the "independent schools ranking" referenced to independentschools.com which you just removed was neither "subjective" nor "non-neutral". It was a clearly marked direct quote from the site's disclaimer page with a link to the page: "independentschools.com does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of these reviews and opinions, and does not perform an independent investigation to verify their truth or accuracy." . I had also changed the date of the ranking to 2012 as there is no evidence provided that it has had the ranking "Since 2008". You reverted that as well. On your suggestion I am taking these issues to the Reliable Sources noticeborad. Voceditenore (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See the section Two issues now at the Reliable sources noticeboard at the bottom of this page for links to the queries. Voceditenore (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's actually very misleading to use one isolated ranking in a school's article in this way. It is very easy for editors to cherry pick rankings that put the school in a favourable light and omit rankings that put them in a less favourable light. School league tables are very difficult to interpret because so much depends on the nature of the school intake, and also how the schools are being ranked. The rankings also only provide a transient measure of the school's performance as rankings can sometimes vary considerably from year to year. I would prefer to see this sentence with the school ranking deleted from the article altogether. Dahliarose (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it to be deleted as well. You can see the "reviews" on which the ranking from independentschools.com is based here. Even league tables and rankings published by the UK government or some by the broadsheet newspapers like The Times which are based on more objective criteria and independent criteria are transient and subject to interpretation. They shouldn't be cherry-picked either. Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's based on such a small number of reviews that I really don't think it has any validity at all. Dahliarose (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my view as well. It actually detracts from the article's credibility rather than enhancing it and frankly gives the impression of advertising, even if not intended that way. But it's a relatively minor issue compared to the SEN provision. That really was misleading in the way that it had used the sources. Voceditenore (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This article does not satisfy GNG
Quite happy to support this at the next AfD, writing swathes of text, while ignoring policy, guidelines, or demand for proof, is no exemption from proving that this prep school is notable. So far, all the arguments I have seen can be resumed as "I can shout louder", "I can write more (niah!)" and "I can cite a pile of shit", your sources are rubbish, trivial, fleeting mentions of the school, and in no way in depth, this is preoccupying, there is not a single source that attests to the school's general, enduring notability, no point doing the Afd thing and listing all the (rubbish) sources, I can read thanks.  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best thing would be for someone to nominate this again. The discussion on this page isn't progressing. An informed admin decision would be the best way forward. isfutile:P (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and your continual refusal to address the issues in question would be interesting to analyse, where is the notability of this school? (Certainly not in the fleeting mentions in the local newspapers).  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said - the best place to discuss would be in AFD. I can't nominate since I would be voting to Keep. However I do think it would move the discussion forward if it went back to AFD at this stage, and I'd be happy to join the discussion there. isfutile:P (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to wait at least two weeks before restarting the AFD as per the original administrative request. Woodleigh is an old organization and secondary sources might exist offline. I think it would be unfair to restart the AFD without sufficient time to identify potential sources. I mostly agree with CaptainScreebo that the sources we have today are insufficient for GNG. So far we only have one article which is substantially about the school, the rest is a jumble of sportst-trivia and routine achievement... the kind of thing we might expect from almost any school. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I draw other editors' attention to what the General notability guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. "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." Several of the existing sources plainly "address the subject directly in detail", and there is no requirement for more than that. In particular, "it need not be the main topic". Would someone please notify me if an afd is started? I shall be supporting the view that the school is notable. Moonraker (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly identify which of the sources available you think are the best. It would be more constructive in the AFD if we could focus our debate on the most useful sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Gazette & Herald feature you mentioned above has some good detail, and more could be made of Memories of Woodleigh School. There is some detail, although less, in the standard references relied on, such as the Good Schools Guide. I don't agree with your comment that this is "the kind of thing we might expect from almost any school". Even if that were correct, the GNB does not rule out most of a class of things being notable. For instance, almost all members of parliament are notable. If almost all schools had significant coverage in reliable sources, then almost all schools would be notable under the GNG. Moonraker (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of sources in relation to notability
At this point in the discussion, I think it might make things clearer to have a full review of the sources found so far in one place. To that end, I'm listing them all under subheadings below. Please add your comments on each source under its subheading. This will probably end up being a huge thread, so please keep comments relevent and as brief as possible - the question for each source is: does it satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG (ie. is it inedependent (created by someone unrelated to the school), reliable (subject to editorial controls), and significant coverage (not a listing or a passing mention)? I believe all of the sources are appropriate for verification. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For clarity I propose
 * This section should be re-titled to something like "Discusion of WP:GNG (notability) in light of sources"
 * Other editors should feel free to add additional sources for discussion, especially off-line sources which the average editor might not have access to. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree on both points, section retitled accordingly. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

GENUKI: Langton

 * Does not appear to mention the school. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Images of England: Langton Hall
"Langton Hall", National Monuments Record: Images of England; English Heritage Retrieved 27 April 2012
 * Coverage of building, not of school. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hull Daily Mail

 * Although not available online, this looks as though it would cover the school in some detail, and would definitely pass GNG. Good find, Tony; would you be willing to post a brief outline of the article here, just so that we can have some idea of what it covers? Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm at the library now. The microfiche article is a write up of a sort of one off event held for the end of the first year where local dignitaries attended, speeches were made etc. There was a marquee. There's mention of the number of pupils and how the school started and the progress during the first year. Brief details regarding plans for the future. About 150-200 words in the Hessle news page.isfutile:P (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds ideal. Thanks for tracking it down. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Gazette & Herald: Karen Darley article

 * Several paragraphs on school. Independent (despite extensive interview with HM), reliable, significant coverage. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Gazette & Herald: Claire Metcalfe article

 * Mentions school, just about passes GNG in my book. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

BBC History People's War Project: Joanna Passmore article

 * Recollections from daughter of first HM. Not independent, sourced to BBC but unlikely to have been fact-checked due to size and nature of project. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yorkshire Post: Richard Vyse obituary

 * No mention of school. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

National archives: correspondence

 * No mention of school. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Memories of Woodleigh School

 * Book by daughters of HM. Possibly not reliable (not a major publishing house, editorial oversight unknown), significant coverage, but not independent. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Images of England: Entrance gates
Entrance gates to Langton Hall and flanking wall. National Monuments Record listing at Images of England.
 * Image of gates, no coverage of school. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yorkshire Boarding Schools Group

 * Directory listing. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Companies House

 * Company listing, not significant coverage in my view. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Independent Schools Directory

 * Reviews from 12 pupils and ex-pupils, user-generated content. Factual information provided by school. Not independent, not a notable listing. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Woodleigh School website

 * Not independent. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

CReSTeD report

 * Reliable and independent, but out-of-date; cannot be used to verify current information. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can this be used to infer notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Good Schools Guide

 * I'm on the fence with this - alone, it's definitely insufficient; in combination with other sources... perhaps. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is simply a directory listing. According to the website: "We feature all 30,000+ schools in the UK". The printed guide is different and actually reviews 1100+ schools independently. The school has not been reviewed. The content of the Woodleigh School online entry (Self-portrait and SEN provision) is from the school itself. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

ISBI listing

 * Directory listing. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First Eleven Magazine

 * Inclusion in a list, no actual coverage. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Malton & Pickering Mercury: Young Rydale musician...

 * Passing mention of the school. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Gazette & Herald: Young writers competition

 * Passing mention of school. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Gazette & Herald: Authors tell their tales

 * Personally I believe this to be press copy derived from the school, however, that's not something I've confirmed. I don't think this constitutes suffient coverage of the school to pass GNG. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Scarborough Evening News

 * Another passing mention. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Malton & Pickering Mercury

 * A passing mention of the school. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Gazette & Herald:Rydale pupils join county set

 * Local news coverage of a school cricket team winning a match, not significant, no coverage of the school itself. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's something of a misrepresentation. The school is covered since it was the school which won. The team/pupils represent the school and not the other way around . And is wasn't a regular match but the county finals tournament which was won. This is a very uncommon event in the history or any school . I think this source indicates notability. isfutile:P (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the article, it was the semi-final they won (final line: "They now go on to the county finals, which are being held next month at Leeds Grammar School."), and it was in Under 11's eight-a-side cricket; not really a notable sporting field. In addition, it's not an uncommon event - two schools win this semi-final every single year. This doesn't strike me as anything more than a local paper covering a local school's sporting fixtures; every local paper covers schools in this way. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No it was the county finals. The region involved, Yorkshire is slightly different to the rest of England. North Yorkshire is the county. Which the school won. The county finals refed in the source are the all Yorkshire finals (which is actually the regional not county finals) The all Yorkshire finals incorporate the winners of north Yorkshire, east Yorkshire, south Yorkshire and west Yorkshire. That year they were held in Leeds which is west Yorkshire. it is highly unusual for a school to win a county finals. More than 300 schools enter each season in each age group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs) 12:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Been a while since I were 'oop North... But nevertheless, surely a school wins the final every single year? It might be unusual for any given school, but it's not actually an unusual event for a school to win... Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We are arguing over the perceived importance of U11s eight-a-side county-cricket. The issue at stake is not whether you or I think it is important or unimportant but whether reliable secondary sources (e.g. national broadsheet newspapers) consider this variant of the game important enough to report on individual fixtures. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Malton & Pickering Mercury: National call-up for Tom

 * Passing mention of the school. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Press

 * Minimal coverage of school (Proctor is a pupil, quote from HM, the school gave him a new bat). Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Lord Taverner's Club

 * No coverage of school. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Grocer: articles on card game

 * No coverage of school itself. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Grocer magazine ran an article about the initiative which aimed to raise funding from public and private sources", it's promotional in tone and therefore not neutral. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree as per reasons already stated. If you have concerns why not send to RS and let them decide? isfutile:P (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Scarborough Evening News: University to honour director

 * Passing mention. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion of sources & review methodology

 * There seems to be a false assumption in this analysis that all reliable sources will be easily found online. Dahliarose (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * agreed . I also note that some sources have been omitted. Worryingly there is also a misunderstanding about the inherent nature of a school. A school is the sum of its pupils and staff. The pupils and staffs achievements at the school are inherently the schools achievements and not the other way around. To argue the inverse, which seems to be what other editors are doioing, would be to restrict any notability to simply the opening or the closing of the school ie sources which would describe only the school as a non tangible entity on paper. That seems a very peculiar point of view to me.
 * For those reasons, unfortunately I think the above analysis is severely flawed. The articles relating to school events all offer good coverage of the school. Those relating to the building are there to reference the text re the history of the building. Their purpose is not to satisfy the notability of the school. isfutile:P (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above list includes all the sources which were (are?) in the article at the time of writing (some, such as the multiple references to Woodleigh School's own website, are listed together under the same heading, but I'm pretty sure I didn't omit any). If more references are added, it would be helpful to list them here too. My intent above was not to provide a comprehensive analysis of my own, but to create a single thread for discussion of the sources; sorry if that wasn't very clear. And of course, offline sources are perfectly valid; if they are found, I have no problem with using them.
 * I'm interested in the relation of the sources to notability because if/when the AfD runs again, we will have to determine whether the guidelines at WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG are satisfied. If we're agreed that some of the sources, such as those verifying information on the building, are clearly not useful for notability, then there's no need to discuss them further.
 * With regards to the "school is the sum of its pupils" argument, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. In my view, for the purposes of notability, the school is an entity in and of itself. Notability isn't inherited; for example, a business is not considered wiki-notable purely by virtue of having a notable CEO (just as the CEO be notable purely for having a notable business). The pupils activities, whilst important to the article, are not necessarily the school's activities. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The test for me would be whether the achievement was dependent on the school. For example the national footballer callup piece the event was not dependent on the school, and therefore I would agree with you. But the county cricket piece, the achievement was by the school team and not the individuals. The achievement could not have happened without the school and was dependent upon the school, and therefore I would argue that the notability was conferred upon the school primarily. Put simply if you asked someone to describe the source by asking them who the article was referring to: 1st piece is about TH being called up to national squad. 2nd piece is about WS team winning the county cricket. Surely the notablIty is conferred upon the subject of the source article?. isfutile:P (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tony, are you making an argument for notability of the subject or for inclusion of this anecdote into the subject if it is found notable? If it's the former are you arguing that every achievement which depends on the subject institution contributes to that institution's notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing neither of your two suggestions. my argument is that notability is conferred upon the subject of the article source. In this case the WS cricket team. isfutile:P (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)