Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caversham Primary School (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Caversham Primary School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Elementary school, which is not inherently notable and does not seem to pass the general notability guidelines. Has been nominated for deletion before but there was no consensus. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This is to test the waters. There are still many others (in the Primary section of that template). Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge - it's had a merge hat since March 08 and doesn't appear to have been improved since the previous AfD. I'd argue strongly that top 200 performing school is dubious in terms of GNG unless there is substantial, verifiable coverage regarding it's notability beyond that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I don't see the need to merge when a single sentence would be enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would probably have just merged it through selective c&p - a redirect isn't a terrible thing to have as it's a reasonable search term probably. But if there aren't sources to show notability I'll change it to delete if necessary Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily passes the WP:GNG, being documented in detail in independent, reliable sources. I have made a start on improving the article.  The claim that no effort had been made to improve the article is therefore obsolete.  In any case, that is an argument to avoid.  Our editing policy is to improve articles rather than bringing them here. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would only have used that justification in any case to support a merge rather than a delete. Keep working on the sources and you might convince me it needs to be kept - although, to be frank, artsmarks and the like are not enough imo to make the school notable - doing so would open up thousands of stubs. The Times article might be - shame Murdoch has it behind his paywall, but I'll see if I can find a way to get a look at it at some point - assuming it makes reference directly to the school rather than simply in passing. But I can certainly be convinced to go for keep if there are the sources to support it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Times article is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Caversham Primary School (2nd nomination). This confirms the school's position as the highest performing primary school in a major borough over 3 years. TerriersFan (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Copyright violations. Under what understanding of that policy are you allowed to insert in Wikipedia a full article which is presumably still under copyright? Better to include a link, or to quote the one relevant sentence. Edison (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - this school was independently assessed as outstanding, the highest rating for a UK school. Just as we keep Blue Ribbon schools in the US we should keep 'outstanding' schools in the UK. Even if that is not good enough, sufficient sources are available to meet WP:GNG. Yes I know all about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but we have higher priorities in cleaning out WP from nn or promotional pages than bothering about a clean page on a public body. TerriersFan (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue very strongly that outstanding Ofsted status should not be enough in itself to crate notability via the GNG. I can see an argument that there are enough other sources in this case though - I'm currently involved in thinking about the arguments about them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge per the common outcome of innumerable primary/elementary school AFDs in recent years. What guideline says "we keep every US school (or school anywhere) which gets a "Blue Ribbon" (whatever that is)?" Notability is not the same as excellence. Wikipedia is not a "blue ribbon guide to finding an outstanding school for your child." Wikipedia is not a directory of every elementary school in the world which was in the top x % on its national test result. Getting some particular rating in a given country does not automatically make a primary/elementary school notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Fails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is not "Getting some particular rating in a given country"; this is the top performing school every year for over a decade in a substantial region. A public institution that is 'best in class' is clearly notable'. TerriersFan (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment"Well above average merit" does not equal "Notability." There is no such inherent notability provided by WP:ORG, the relevant guideline for schools that are given some "Ofsted" rating. The Ofsted article seems to say in "Current system of inspection" that 9% of schools get an "Outstanding" rating since 2009, but that 19% got an "Outstanding" rating before 2009. This is not a compelling argument for notability, at all. In the US, "Blue ribbon" schools include 5200 recipients, or 3.9% of the 133,000 eligible schools. That also is far, far too low a bar. The US award has been criticized as going typically to schools which have students with wealthy parents. In any event it is not selective enough in either country. It is not the "Top performing one school." WP:ORG requires multiple instances of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, besides the common outcome of merging elementary and secondary schools. Wikipedia is not a Michelin guide to above average schools. It is specifically not a directory of every organization which got some particular score in its national rating system.  Being exceptionally good or exceptionally bad at what an organization is there to do does not gain automatic notability. If it did, the 10% lowest rated schools would also be entitled to automatic notability. Edison (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge as clear example of a non-notable primary school. EVERY region, EVERY locality has "one of the best performing schools" in that region or locality. There are good schools and bad schools, I am sure this is a good one — but being a good school doesn't have a free path over the notability bar. There is no historic event which took place at this school, it is not the first representative of a unique pedagogic innovation, it was not attended by a historic figure, it was not the place where a historic figure taught... It is a school, a good school, a non-notable elementary school. There are thousands and thousands of those around the globe. Fortunately, we have a huge body of precedent for dealing with cases like this, so we don't often have to waste time haggling over whether this elementary school or that is "notable" enough on the basis of having won the Borough Prize Certificate of Excellent Status. Repeat after me: Non-notable elementary school = merge; High school or degree-granting institution = keep. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge: I would guard against using Ofsted's 'Outstanding' as a reference for notability. Quality, yes, but it is purely a procedural rating as part of the structure of inspections by HM inspectors for state schools. It is not part of an award scheme and is not comparable to the USA's Blue Ribbon. I'm not altogether sure that the Times article lends any suggestion that an oversubscribed locally high performing school is particularly notable, even if the parents took the matter to the High Court - there is a difference in news coverage that confirms notability, and using any news coverage to fullfil Wikipedia criteria for extensive coverage - the item covered is one event. Idem for the trivia in the Reading Post, however sad - all murder victims went to school somewhere. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no rule stating that all primary schools are none-notable, and this one appears to meet WP:GNG (and even WP:ORG if you want to go down that route). Of the seven references listed, two - this and this - contain significant coverage about the school; the second is a national newspaper, so there's evidence of notability outside of a local area too. There are more sources that aren't in the article yet, both at local and national level, and even some book coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)




 * Comment - Being "Outstanding" is not a legitimate claim to notability. Being the site of a unique pedagogic innovation, the sit of a historic event, having a former teacher of historical importance — these things are legitimate claims to notability for an elementary school. A very firm community consensus has evolved about schools: elementary schools to be merged to generalized articles about their local districts or communities, high schools and degree-granting institutions to be kept per se. One thing we do NOT want to do is start a competition among the hundreds of thousands or millions of elementary schools to "make" Wikipedia by virtue of bureaucratic awards. There are good schools and bad schools — Wikipedia is not a compendium of "good" schools. It is an encyclopedia, the articles in which should be encyclopedia-worthy. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything you say is true, but none of it addresses the fact that this school clearly meets WP:GNG, the definition of Wikipedia notability. We can't discriminate against organisations which meet every relevant guideline on the grounds that we don't like the reasons why they've received significant coverage. And doesn't this have a legitimate claim to be a historic event? It certainly set an important precedent - few other councils have attempted to go down the same route. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely not sure it does though. The court case is more relevant to Reading Borough Council in many ways - they're the main story, the school is pretty incidental. The book you link to above is no more than a passing reference - someone who happened to be at the school, no more that that - that's certainly not enough to meet the GNG. The local paper coverage is, in the main, standard primary school paper coverage - if that's GNG then every primary school in the country is. Which brings us back to the court case which, it seems to me, to be what this AfD rests on. Is that enough direct coverage of the school? Maybe it is - in which case someone needs to make sure the article is a wee bit more balanced. I would still favour merge given the one event nature of the notability, but I can understand why people might see this otherwise. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the local coverage really standard? The same paper gives no such level of coverage to Redlands Primary School, so the assertion that every primary school receives it is definitely wrong. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Trust me, primary schools can get virtually anything printed if they put enough press releases in! One my kids go to has had articles in about a milestone being repainted in the village, a new roof and getting given some seeds and gardening kit - all of it directly addressing the school in reliable, third party secondary sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The outstanding rating on its own does not provide a reason to keep the article, although it is still something to be proud of. Under the current (tougher) Ofsted inspection regime instituted in Autumn 2009, approximately 9% of schools gain an outstanding rating. At the time of this school's inspection in February 2009 the bar was set much lower so the percentage of outstanding schools was higher. However, the coverage of the high court challenge (which should be expanded if the article is kept) plus the influence it had on Kelly Southerton make it notable enough to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:55, 4 June 2011 (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.