Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cottesmore 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   keep. No more arguments for deletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cottesmore School

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non notable UK Prep School. No references to indicate notability. Does not pass WP:GNG First4Uppingham (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — First4Uppingham (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dahliarose (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom - no significant coverage to reach WP:GNG criteria for organizations. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — 213.246.93.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. This is almost certainly the nominator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete (see my later comments) Have Googled this for a while but can't find anything beyond brief mentions in guides and review sites etc.--A bit iffy (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The school itself is of borderline notability. It's not particularly big (150 pupils) and of only moderate age (founded in 1894), but the clincher for me is that its building is Grade II listed and is therefore architecturally notable. True, Grade II is not uncommon, but combined with the school's age I think it passes the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing based on policy argument there. It needs to satisfy WP:GNG and it doesn't. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that an organisation can acquire notability because the building they inhabit might be notable.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course they can if the building is described in the article. The building is listed by English Heritage as "main building to Cottesmore School". It doesn't have any other listed name. So it makes sense to put an article about the building under the title "Cottesmore School", and naturally we would then describe the school as well. And as I said, the school itself is already of borderline notability because of its age. The building tips it over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No that would make the building notable. Notability isn't inherited so that doesn't make the school notable. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I think I quite clearly said, I consider the building plus the school's age together sufficient to qualify it for an article. What part of that statement (which I have now expressed three times) is confusing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All of it. There's nothing in policy which states that age confers notability. Therefore the age argument is specious - unless you can find a policy which suggests otherwise. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic passes the WP:GNG by virtue of its coverage in detail in independent, reliable sources. Note that notable alumni include Thomas Sopwith and Gordon Chater.  Note also that the nominating account was only started yesterday.  It is named after a rival school and started by adding similar material about another school.  It now seems to be embarking on a deletion and tagging spree.  It seems absurd that we should tolerate this vexatious assault upon respectable educational topics. Warden (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If there were sources with significant coverage ... but I can't find any. Perhaps you could detail two sources you believe offer coverage for us to analyse. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Could Warden (or anyone) list the detailed, independent, reliable coverage please? By the way: I'm not interested for the moment in the motives of the nominator, only in whether the school is notable. If someone can come up with such coverage, then I'd be happy to change my view.--A bit iffy (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNG ZachFoutre (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Account set up 17 minutes ago, apparently solely to vote for deletion on this and similar school articles. Surprisingly similar to the nominator, in fact! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: As per Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School, I am closing all of the disruptive schools nominations made today. I leave this discussion open as an exception, with the disruptive sockpuppet account opinions struck through by me, because of the good faith opinion of A bit iffy. Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The comments from the anonymous IP account are also from the sockpuppet and I believe this IP address has now been blocked too. Should these comments also be struck through? Dahliarose (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't fret too hard about it. The closing administrator, whoever that may be, will give whatever weight to that part of a multi-person discussion that xe sees fit.  I've just struck the parts with the discussion shorthands. Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The school's own website has a history of the school  from which it is clear that there is much of historic interest. A brief search did turn up this useulf reference to the building and the school in British History Online. It is primarily the building that is of importance rather than the school, but it makes sense for the article to be about the present usage of the building, and there are already four notable alumni who need a home.  I've not yet had time to look for more sources, but it is obvious that there will be multiple reliable sources to write an encylcopaedic article about any institution or building of this importance that has been around for over 100 years. Many of the sources will, of course, be in print and not available online. Dahliarose (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This discussion is precisely the mayhem the deletion spree was intended to cause. I see why this exception was left, but it is time to put it to bed. The article has sufficient sources. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SuggestionWhen the building is notable, and nothing else is, we sometime make the article about the building and mention the school in the article, with a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think the school — by which I mean the education provider — isn't notable. Although there are now a number of references, I haven't seen any non-trivial ones. In detail:


 * ^ Margaret Smallwood (2008), Cottesmore School, Independent Schools Inspectorate — I assume there are inspection reports of all schools, so one on Cottesmore is unremarkable
 * ^ The Morning Post (London, England), Monday, March 29, 1897; pg. 5; Issue 38941. 19th Century British Library Newspapers: Part II.  – about the building, not the school I can't easily read this. Does it have much of substance?
 * ^ English Heritage listing  — about the building, not the school
 * ^ Mark Girouard (1971), The Victorian Country House, Clarendon Press, p. 8 — about the building, not the school
 * ^ Jill Franklin (1981), The Gentleman's Country House and its Plan, 1835-1914, Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 257  — about the building, not the school
 * ^ Main building to Cottesmore School. Listing on English Heritage's Images of England website  — about the building, not the school
 * ^ End of school dinners. The Evening Standard, (London, England), Tuesday, September 15, 2009  — I can't easily read this (paywalled). Does it contain much of substance about the school?
 * ^ The Almost Late Gordon Chater, Bantam Books, 1996, ISBN 9781863597975  — I can't easily read this. However, I assume it only mentions in passing that Chater attended the school.
 * ^ The Encyclopedia Britannica, 20, 1929 — I can't easily read this. However, I assume it only mentions in passing that Sopwith attended the school.


 * (And anyway, as regards famous alumni, most schools have them, so this is unremarkable.)


 * I'm interested by DGG's comment that sometimes buildings, rather than occupying organisations, are made the subject of articles. And the building does to me look quite striking and perhaps worthy of an article. Now, suppose the school were to move again, this time into a nondescript building. I think the school would probably be deemed non-notable. But this would go against the principle that notability is not temporary.


 * Is the building notable though? I'm not certain — there seem to be around 400,000 Grade II buildings — I think it might be. It is quite an imposing building, and the ostrich millionaire history perhaps tips the balance.


 * Hence I would change my opinion about article's existence to weak keep if it were renamed Buchan Hill (or similar). NB: I still don't think the article should be essentially about the school.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Given that no one apart from the sockpuppet nominator actually thinks that this page shouldn't exist, I would suggest that this AfD be closed as a speedy keep. The editorial discussion as to whether the article should be renamed could then continue on the appropriate talk page. WP:GNG is just one part of the WP:N guideline, but this is a guideline not a policy. The article satisfies our core policies WP:V and WP:NOR. It is a pointless exercise analysing the few sources that have been found to date, as no one has as yet spent much time working on the article. Also only a tiny fraction of the sources to support subject matter such as this will be found online. Time would be much better spent improving Wikipedia rather than prolonging this discussion. Dahliarose (talk) 10:55, 12 May 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.