Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaver Road Primary School


 * 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   merge to Didsbury. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Beaver Road Primary School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A primary school that has no substantial claim to notability. Saying it is above average and high in the league tables doesn't give it notability, nor do the uncited claims (since June 2010) that the school has appeared in a number of TV shows. As with many similar primary schools it should be deleted/redirected to Didsbury Bob Re-born (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: As per WP:NHS. — Pewfly (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per longstanding consensus for non-notable primary schools. Please note that WP:NHS relates to secondary schools and this is a school for ages 4-11. Carrite (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is obviously notable per the WP:GNG being the subject of detailed, independent and reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Didsbury. This is obviously non-notable per WP:GNG. The references are not significant, are primary sources, and do not support the assertions made in the stubby article. Fmph (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Keep, per Warden. One of the most exemplary Ofsted reports I've seen; clearly a notable school that's doing something very interesting. The ofsted report being what it is, it's clear that the school is doing something interesting, and I'm sure that someone with knowledge of the school (like the original author) would be able to add substantial claims to notability. Per WP:NRVE, there is a strong suggestion that such sources exist, and therefore this article should be kept. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 13:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with stuff like Ofsted reports is that they are 1) primary sources, and 2) transitory/ point-in-time viewpoints or opinions,and as such are open to being reviewed. Even Ofsted nowadays do not believe that all 'outstanding' schools are really outstanding. Fmph (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The coverage is significant per WP:SIGCOV as it provides plenty of detail and so enables us to write upon the topic without recourse to original research. Inspection reports are not primary sources because they are summary reports which are written for general publication.  The report cites above states "Inspectors observed the school’s work and examined a range of documentation, particularly that related to the safeguarding of pupils and the progress of individuals and groups. Case studies were examined of pupils who have particular needs. Samples of pupils’ work were studied and questionnaires were analysed from staff..."  Those documents, case studies, questionnaires and samples would be the primary sources in this case.  The report digests, analyses and summarises these primary sources and so is a secondary source. Warden (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be true if those documents were the main basis of the report. But in reality they are not. Otherwise the inspector would never need to visit the school. The evidence could just be packaged up and sent to the inspector, for him/her to make their judgement. Actually the key to a successful inspection is for the inspector(s) to visit the school, meet the people, absorb the atmosphere, validate the evidence, and make a judgement. it's a primary source. Fmph (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: per Fmph. The references used don't establish notability; nor does "an exemplary Ofsted report"  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Didsbury, where it is the accepted view is that most Primary schoold are NN, but they are worth recording in the local article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 04:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect - To village or parent school district article, it seems to me that these "ofsted" reports are subjective depending on the reader. Per pre-established consensus a redirect is in order. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 04:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "pre-established consensus" as Notability (schools) failed to establish a consensus for any particular draft. Warden (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Conditional delete This school would go down the typical primary school route of deletion or becoming a redirect, due to failure to satisfy WP:ORG, except for the claim that it was "featured in many English television shows" which is tagged for lacking a reliable source. Could someone find sources for the extent of coverage in the shows? If it was just mentioned, or appeared in the background of a shot, that would not satisfy WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Edison (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment With no more than a few minutes, I found that the first reference link in the article is a dead link, which makes this entire discussion suspect.  I just finished an analysis of 25 recent Primary-school AfD nominations and less than 10% resulted in the use of admin deletion tools.  What this means IMO is that nominators should be either bold about merging primary schools or the merge discussion belongs on the talk page, not at AfD.  There also seems to be some disagreement about the purpose of a deletion review, which does not say "AfD review", but "deletion review".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I found more than 30 secondary and/or primary references.  IMO, the material easily satisfies WP:V verifiability.  It serves no purpose to analyze the WP:N notability of these references, as the topic is an institution that by solid community consensus we want to cover somewhere somehow in the encyclopedia, whether or not as a WP:N stand-alone article.  Any further analysis belongs on the talk page of the article, as any merge consensus at this AfD can be overridden by a newer consensus on that talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could copy one or 2 of those scintillating references in here, or on the article to show us what you mean? Fmph (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the state of the article at the time you posted your !vote on February 4. You reported, "The references are not significant, are primary sources, and do not support the assertions made in the stubby article."  Given that the first link on the list of references is a dead link, the evidence is that your testimony in your !vote is academic dishonesty, that you could not possibly have known whether or not the sources were significant, and you could not possibly have known whether or not they supported the assertions made in the article.  In my first comment, I reported indirectly that your !vote was suspect, so the flippant reference to my UserId has the appearance of admitting to the concern through and by an act of retaliation.  Had you done the work that I did to analyze the dead link, you would know that the dead link leads to references in a local newspaper.  Had you followed (or not chosen to ignore) my !vote analysis, you would agree that these references are not relevant to the current discussion.  I hope that you will consider retracting your !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So,exactly how would you know that the first reference was a dead link on the day I voted? Did you check it that day? (hint: the correct answer is you can't know that). But that's beside the point given that my vote referred to Wardens reference quoted here as opposed to the article page. In fact I did both a news and books search as I always do, and came up with nothing significant. I expected your response to quote some of the passing mentions which I don't see as significant but which others (including you?) sometimes do. Academic dishonesty? Do me a favour...Fmph (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The point I was trying to make in my keep vote above regarding the good Ofsted report was that it suggests that the school is doing something interesting and noteworthy (at least in respect to the field of education). &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 03:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a Chair of Governors of a school that was twice rated good by Ofsted and once rated satisfactory, I can tell you that a 'good' from Ofsted means nothing of the sort. All it means is that on the day of the inspection, the inspectors thought we were slightly above average. Fmph (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to claim unverifiable authority in a discussion on the internet? Are you serious?
 * If you were actually in a position of authority at a school, then you would be aware that Ofsted reports are never based on a single "day of inspection". From the Ofsted report linked above:
 * This inspection was carried out by four additional inspectors. Inspectors observed 36 lessons taught by 34 teachers. Meetings were held with staff, groups of pupils, representatives of the governing body, and with the School Improvement Partner. Inspectors observed the school’s work and examined a range of documentation, particularly that related to the safeguarding of pupils and the progress of individuals and groups. Case studies were examined of pupils who have particular needs. Samples of pupils’ work were studied and questionnaires were analysed from staff, pupils in Key Stage 2, and from 260 parents and carers.
 * Observation of 36 lessons, meetings with students, staff, governing body, and academics, examination of case studies, documentation, work samples, and deployment of questionnaires doesn't happen in a single "day of inspection". I'm speaking, of course, from my experience here in Australia, but the UK can't be that different. That said, I don't even really have to speak from the perspective of my work experience because what you suggest is utterly ridiculous. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 08:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't say if the UK is different from Oz, because I have no experience of the schools in Oz. I can and do have plenty of experience of schools in the UK. Which I understand you don't. What I suggest may well be utterly ridiculous. But it is also true. Most inspections - especially primary schools - are no longer carried out by a team of 4+ inspectors. Quite often there is only one. Many times they will not even meet the governing body. The School Improvement Partner is a role which no longer exists. 36 lesson observations might be about right for a secondary, but would be quite unusual in the vast majority of primaries. And if you want to crib about the duration then I will quite happily concede that the day of the inspection could be extended to the week of the inspection, or even the month of the inspection. The judgement is still a snapshot in time, and some schools are better than others at pulling the wool over the inspectors eyes than other.
 * The main point I was making was about the nature of a 'good' judgement. There are 4 possible judgements available to the lead inspector: - outstanding, good, requires-improvement(formerly satisfactory), and unsatisfactory. By and large, any analysis of the judgement set will show that approx. 10% of schools are 'outstanding'; same goes for 'unsatisfactory'. That leaves 80% to be split evenly between 'good' and 'requires-improvement'. And that is a standard bell-curve distribution. The difference between 'good' and 'requires-improvement' is often very small, and may well be down to the inspectors view of the school's own capacity to improve. Many schools flip-flop between 'good' and 'requires-improvement' in turn. And that's because they are distinctly average. 'good' means above-average. That's it. Fmph (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This Ofsted report states that which I've quoted above which renders most of what you've said quibble. There's not much more to respond to here. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 13:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this Ofsted report does not pronounce the school as 'good'. It says the school is 'outstanding'. I wrongly assumed you know the difference. A school which is judged as 'outstanding' is, at that moment in time, and extremely good school. Somewhere in the top 5-10% of schools in England. But because they have the ability to lose that position just as easily as they gained it, this does not make them notable. Notability is forever, not just a transitory judgement of the inspectors on that day/week. Fmph (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fmph is correct. An Ofsted evaluation is a measure of quality (at a point in time) not notability. An assessment of outstanding is worthy of mention in the article, but does not in itself confer notability on the school. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about, Fmph? You're talking all over the shop here. You say that Ofsted reports are generated on the basis of next to no actual investigation. But the text of the report quite clearly says otherwise.
 * Once that line of argument was over, you're now talking about whether it says "good" or "outstanding", when that wasn't what I was talking about. You say that it isn't a "good" school, it's an "outstanding" school. And? Outstanding is better than good. What's your point?
 * So to say it again, and I'm going to try to keep it as simple as possible so that we can stop with this shifting of goal posts and whole playing fields. Consistent exemplary Ofsted reports, like the one linked above, indicate that the school is likely to be doing something notably interesting in respect to education. There being a strong likelihood of there being something notable about the school, keep is the best outcome here. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier if you just used the terminology that is used by Ofsted and the rest of the educational world in England? We don't use such terms as 'consistently exemplary'. Thats your subjective view of what this school is. It isn't supported by this report, or any other of the Beaver Road reports. This is now - at this point in time - an 'outstanding' school. Thats not my judgement. It's Ofsted's. Your judgement of 'consistently exemplary' is just yours. And it doesn't stand up. They used to be a 'good' school, which is, as I have explained, only 'above average'. To suggest otherwise is original research. It's no use you dreaming up these wonderful descriptions of the school. We need reliable independent sources to say that. Lets find these references, show that it is notable, and then, and only then, keep the article. Lets not imagine stuff, or make it up, or pretend. Lets find the sources that will stand the test of time. Until then, lets not bother. Fmph (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have said this again and again, but the fact that it's received an exemplary report (and I'm using the term "exemplary" as an assessment of the whole report; exemplary and outstanding are strikingly similar in the English language, so long as we're not going to play semantic games) suggests that the school is doing something interesting, as I've said repeatedly. WP:NRVE suggests that the existence of articles pointing to notability not currently in the article should be considered. Being that the school receives exemplary reports, it's likely to be doing something interesting. An editor with local knowledge could potentially expand this, and therefore the result should be keep. This shouldn't be a problem to understand if you have the experience with schools that you claim. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 09:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a case of semantics. It's about the actualite. As far as you see it, this is an exemplary school. However the references you quote don't say that. The use a very specifically defined term - outstanding'. And the definition of this term is quite different from the wikitionary definition:
 * "Almost all pupils, including where applicable disabled pupils and those with special educational needs, are making rapid and sustained progress in most subjects over time given their starting points. They learn exceptionally well and as a result acquire knowledge quickly and in depth and are developing their understanding rapidly in a wide range of different subjects across the curriculum, including those in the sixth form and areas of learning in the Early Years Foundation Stage. They develop and apply a wide range of skills to great effect, including reading, writing, communication and mathematical skills across the curriculum that will ensure they are exceptionally well prepared for the next stage in their education, training or employment. The standards of attainment of almost all groups of pupils are likely to be at least in line with national averages for all pupils with many above average. In exceptional circumstances where standards of attainment, including attainment in reading in primary schools, of any group of pupils are below those of all pupils nationally, the gap is closing dramatically over a period of time as shown by a wide range of attainment indicators."
 * So you can use the wiktionary definition, or make up one of your own if you like. But it would be more sensible to jus stick to the reality of what 'outstanding' actually means in this context. But your argument above obfuscates the real point of the argument against using such a point-in-time judgement as a notability marker. To misquote Aristotle, one 'outstanding' judgement does not a summer make. What you would need would be sustained 'outstanding' judgements over a significant period of time, together with reliable independent sources which acknowledge that point. At that point, I'd agree it should be a keep. But we haven't reached that point here, so lets not keep. Fmph (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 404. But thanks for making me think about it. Seems pretty consistently exemplary to me (noting the infrequency of the inspections, because it's a fairly highly rated school) &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 10:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What you call 'infrequently' is actually distinctly average. What we have here are 4 inspections in 10+ years. 3 of which confirmed that the school was judged 'good' (i.e. above average) and one which was judged 'outstanding'. Not only is that not infrequent, it also averages at 'above average'. Nothing more. It's a pity you don't really understand the English inspection regime. Fmph (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you were involved as a School governor or some such? I don't need to have an expert understanding of the English inspection regime to have noted (by clicking through to the actual reports) that one of those 4 is not a report, leaving 3. One of those three is outstanding, and one good. The earliest one seems to have used a different rating structure, and, the results were pretty exemplary. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 10:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Been there. Done that. Bought the t-shirt. When you say that 1 of them "... is not a report....", I'd have to say that it depends on your definition of report. And if you understood the Ofsted inspection framework, you would understand that this 'non-report' is a simple confirmation that the school is still at the level it was previously. This is produced after a shorter-form inspection, usually by a single inspector, who will have gathered and studied an in-ordinate amount of information from a variety of sources - exam boards, the school, the parents, the local authority - and will have have made a presumed judgement of 'good', with no back sliding before visiting the school. They will then turn up at very short notice, spend a day looking around, poking their noses in here and there, trying to confirm or reject their presumed judgement. If they decide to confirm the presumed judgement, they dont complete a full report. Instead they produce the letter that you found which just confirms that the school is at least as good as it was during the last visit. This allows them to postpone a full inspection for between 18 months and 3 years. Its a money saving device. It still means that an inspection took place and the school was still good.
 * I know there are tricky peculiarities about Ofsted that are often not very intuitive. Just thank your lucky stars that you don't need to actually work with it day-2-day where you are. Fmph (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I had thought from the way you were talking that there was something really special about this school. As it happens it has received one 'outstanding' rating and one 'good' rating. The old report contains a lot which is good but nothing that makes it stand out as exemplary/exceptional - just good. Which brings me back to notability - a single 'outstanding' rating does not make a school notable, just as a blue ribbon award in the USA doesn't make a school there notable. --Bob Re-born (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Being that WP:WPSCH/AG mentions Blue Ribbon awards explicitly, I think you'd need to explore consensus about whether that wouldn't contribute towards the notability of a school. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge I am still willing to go with the compromise that primary schools are not usually notable, unless there is something exceptional to say, and routine bureaucratic reports are not among them. If of course the compromise breaks does and we do end up discussing each one, I will probably change my opinion to any adequately written article about a primary school is notable, because some sort of reliable sources generally do exist. (The other argument that is increasingly influencing me is that these provide a way for young contributors to get started. The need to keep the encyclopedia  going is basic to everything; as long as WP:V is met, Notability is much less important than users. We can have an encyclopedia  with carrying degrees of  notability; we cannot have one without continually attracting new volunteer users. The underlying principle is that WP is a free encyclopedia, what type is secondary. alternatively, this can be worded as the basic IAR principle that whatever is necessary to help preserve the encyclopedia   is justifiable, and the rules must adjust to permit it.  As I said, I'm not prepared to go there yet, because I have a great reluctance to break any of our rare compromises. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. There are seemingly insufficient resources available online to write an encyclopaedic article. An isolated outstanding OFSTED report is not sufficient to confer notability. We do not normally delete or redirect non-notable schools. We merge the usable content into the locality articles. I have taken the pre-emptive measure of merging the content. I would hope that a local editor would be able to find the sources for the mentions in the TV programmes. If sufficient sources exist to expand the content then the article a standalone can easily be recreated. Dahliarose (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.