Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleves School, Weybridge


 * 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   delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleves School, Weybridge

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable. As far as I can tell, "Outstanding" is one of four Ofsted grades for schools - approx 10 - 20% of schools fall into this grade. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is a matter of sources not status. It is our policy that " there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and so the number 17,000 has no significance here. Warden (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is certainly notable per the WP:GNG, being documented in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment:Indeed, the 17,000 number is irrelevant IF all 17,000 subjects are notable for some reason in their own right. The consensus in the past has been that primary schools are not inherently notable. That means that for the article to stay, there must a claim made as to why this school is notable.  This article makes no claim as to why this primary school is, in terms of notability, any different to any one of the 17,000 other primary schools in the UK (alone - never mind the rest of the world).
 * Your reliable source is from Ofsted. Ofsted, is a statutory authority charged with inspecting standards at every school in England from nursery upwards.  There will be one of these documents for every single establishment. The conclusion of your argument is thus that, every single school in England is automatically notable because Ofsted inspects it.  In reality, the inspection report you reference does little more than  a) confirm this school exists b) in this particular case, tells us its performance - as assessed at its last 3-yearly inspection - is above average.
 * If you can find a reason that this school is truly notable, I'll strike my delete. For example, does the school have any historical significance? Is the school building even listed? - Although there are almost 400,000 Grade II listed buildings, I would consider this a different matter as listing is an expert recognition of a building's significance compared to other buildings. Compare that with an Ofsted inspection report which is a statutory document produced by virtue of the mere existence of a school. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, all such English schools are notable because they will all have such detailed reports created by an independent, reliable authority. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of notability.  Per the relevant guideline, this does not require fame or importance.  What the word notability means here is just that the topic has been noticed &mdash; that some independent, professional authors have taken the trouble to write about the topic.  The reason for this is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this word means that we cover the full circle of knowledge.  We are not the Guinness Book of Records, only looking for superlatives.   We are not Ripley's Believe It or Not! looking only for novelties and the bizarre.  We aim to be to the "sum of the world's knowledge" and that means all noted topics not just an arbitrary fraction. Warden (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your test for notability is that "some independent, professional authors have taken the trouble to write about the topic." But that's not the test here at WP, because routine, matter-of-course coverage which every entity of a certain type gets no matter what, doesn't count.  I suggest you modify your test to read: "some independent, professional authors -- who are not required to write about the particular topic as a matter of course -- have chosen to take the trouble to write about the topic, in preference to the many other topics they might have chosen but did not." EEng (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you are quite mistaken. If all entities of a certain type tend to have detailed sources then we will cover them all, not just a selected few.  We therefore cover all elected politicians, all professional athletes, all human settlements, all chemicals, all species, all mathematical theorems, all battles, all universities, &c.  As we certainly cover some schools, we should therefore cover all schools for which sources can be found.  Like this one. Warden (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, do you just make things up hoping people will believe them? You've been here plenty long enough to know that's not true.  Give it up. You're making yourself look silly, you're wasting others' time, and you're not doing this school any favors by prolonging the discussion of just how unremarkable it really is.  EEng (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)  P.S. "All mathematical theorems" -- really? Wow -- that's a lot of articles! Why, I hardly know how to begin enumerating them!
 * Actually you are incorrect. For example, I have seen quite a number of articles for elected local councillors being deleted as non-notable. Politicians with articles are generally viewed as being notable because they have regular and non-trivial coverage in multiple sources, not because they have a birth certificate and appear in the census. I dare say the same applies to all the other topics you identify. For example, a mathematical theorem (or theory of any kind) becomes notable because it is mentioned in peer reviewed publications. Believe me, there is an absolute wasteland of discarded and/or discredited research in the literature that does not have or deserve an article. There is even more that didn't get as far as publication. Pit-yacker (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: A typical planning application generates many many more pages of reports. In this case a planning officer has "noticed" a planning application and has written a detailed report about the application and why (or why not) the development should be allowed to proceed. Generally speaking, these are also publicly available.  By your logic these should be taken as meeting WP:GNG for the subject of the application.  That means that we should have articles for every supermarket built in at least the last 30 years (Even better we can have an article on my local branch of ASDA opening 24hrs - because that required another application (and series of reports) to remove the original condition limiting it hours to 7am-9pm . Pit-yacker (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure to whose logic you're referring. My intent was to exclude routine reports and so on as significant coverage, trying to explain that in terms of Warden's idea.  Looks like I left too many loopholes. EEng (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was replying to Warden Pit-yacker (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutralitytalk 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your links are to essays, not policies. We prefer policy-based argument here as essays just represent personal opinions, not a general consensus. Warden (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's no claim being made to notability. Yes, it exists, so it's a building. But there's nothing which would be sufficient to pass the GNG that I see at present. Show something beyond an Ofsted report - something that actually makes it notable - and I'll think about it some more. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability cannot be established with a report which is automatically generated by the mere existence of the institution. Anyone familiar with the English education system understands what Oftsed reports are. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Weybridge where it is already  mentioned, per standard procedure. Primary  schools  have no  inherent  notability and an Osfsted report merely confirms their existence through 3-yearly routine inspections with : 'This school has classrooms, pupils, and teachers, and it should strive to do better at...'  However, non notable schools are generally neither kept   nor  deleted; instead,  as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to  the article about  the school district (USA) or to  the article about  the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the  on  the redirect  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Kudpung's suggestion is fine by me. Precedent is a useful guide Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:48, 30 December 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.