Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgeborough 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. There are some concerns that this nomination fails speedy keep criterion 2.3. Since we're here anyway at the end of a normal AfD period, I don't see any cause to still speedy close the discussion. I will not be taking those opinions as full keeps, as they have not gone in to the notability issues brought up, but they certainly don't argue to delete the article. The nominator himself seems content to merge to Farnham, which leaves Bob Re-born, Dominus and Purplebackpack with arguments to delete, of which Bob Re-born seems to be prefering alternatives like refocussing or merging. Problems with that have been pointed out by warden, but would be out of the scope of this discussion. All in all I see consensus to keep here, though it is not completely clear if a refocus or merge would be out of order. These are editorial decisions that won't be precluded by this keep close. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edgeborough School

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dahliarose (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Standard non-notable proep school. No sources in Gnews or Books other than persons who attanded the school. I didn't want to nominate but tried the merge procedure only to be continually reverted by Dahliarose. Suggest article should be Deleted. If necessary merge relevant and referenced information to Farnham
 * Delete. Non-notable primary school. No assertion of notability. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - coverage in The Illustrated London news, Volume 255, Issue 2, and this biography of Keith Douglas:  suggests notability. I'm pretty sure there will be decent offline sources for this school. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An ILN photo establishes notability? Really? Lots of people, including some notable subjects attended the school,. But that doesn't establish notability. It's not inherited. Fmph (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The second source provides a few pages of coverage, which would be sufficient to write a short article on the school. I'm not really opposed to a merge, but I think the subject probably has the potential for a proper article. While notability isn't inherited, it seem unlikely that there are no available good sources for a school which goes back to the 19th century and has several notable former pupils. --He to Hecuba (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've made a start on expanding the article and adding references. It easily satisfies WP:N. There is plenty of scope for further expansion, but a lot of the material is in books which are not accessible online. See here The school also seems to have a few other notable alumni. There's a John Strachey who went to the school but I can't tell from the book snippets which one he is as there are a number of notable people with this name. Dahliarose (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So what part of WP:N does it now satisfy? The school certainly exists. Some notable people went to school there. Some people used it during the war. Some other people went to church there. I still don't get the notability part? Is that it? Fmph (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We presume that there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. In the same way as we presume species and places to inherently encylopaedic, a historical school with multiple notable former pupils is very likely to be notable. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the existence of multiple reliable sources that demonstrate notability. To my mind the school has an interesting history. Whether someone finds the article interesting or not is entirely a matter of taste. Dahliarose (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. He to Hecuba (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. He to Hecuba (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable elementary school. Nothing in first 200 Google hits that even comes close to establishing notabilty: mostly listings in directories, job offers, and other routine, trivial and tangential mentions. Sources listed by User:He to Hecuba above fall far short of establishing notability. Schools do not inherit notability from their alumni. User:Dahliarose's argument that they find the school's history "interesting" is sweet, but woefully insufficient for giving the school its own article in WP. Nor is the age of the school particularly noteworthy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that you have not actually looked at the article since I added content and sources or the additional sources that I found relating to Frensham Place. The history of the school building is well documented in multiple reliable sources at both local and national level. Whether the history is interesting or not is neither here nor there it's the sources that count. Not all sources for historical buildings are easily accessible online. Please not too that it is not an American elementary school but, as the article clearly states, an English prep school catering for children up to the age of 13. Dahliarose (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an elementary school, pure and simple. And the history of the building is not all that notable. There are doubtless thousands of such buildings in the UK. Your satements about the breadth and depth of coverage are highly exaggerated, and weaken your case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are significant differences between a US public elementary school and a private, UK prep school. The latter is much more likely to be notable. --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The type of school has no bearing on the discussion as there is no guideline that states that articles on prep schools are not permitted so I'm not quite sure why you're bringing that up. In any case, as far as I understand it US elementary schools do not provide any secondary-level education and only teach up to age 11 so you cannot compare a prep school (in this case providing 10 years of education) with US elementary schools. it helps if the correct terminology is used to avoid any confusion. There are indeed numerous other historic buildings in the UK but that is again entirely irrelevant to this discussion. They would all equally merit an article if sufficient sources existed. Have you actually looked at the numerous sources I've found and the article as it presently stands? Dahliarose (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any differences are immaterial: an elementary school is an elementary school. What counts is substantial third party coverage in major publications. I see nothing of the sort here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To Hecuba - how is a prep school likely to be more notable than an elementary/primary school? --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To Dahliarose - the assumed notability guidelines for secondary school apply to those awarding higher level certificates e.g. GCSE or High School Diploma. This exemption from the normal notability rules has never been applied to middle schools, junior high schools, or elementary schools that go to age 13/14. In fact if you look at the history of WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools you will see a number of instances where Junior High Schools (which go way past age 11) have been deleted and redirected to the local settlement. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Prep schools have pretty high fees, so historically they have predominantly taken upper-class children, leading them to have a sense of prestige associated with them which would not be associated with a elementary or "Junior high school" in the US. Many prep schools, such as the Dragon School], are notable due to their history. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And that contributes exactly jack shit to notability. Significant coverage in widely read independent sources is what is required, and what's missing here.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the quantum of a jack shit?--Milowent • hasspoken 19:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To Dominus: Can you please explain what a jack shit so that the issue can be addressed? There are already plenty of widely read independent sources cited in the article. How many more do you want? Not all the sources are freely available online. There are references in the British Newspaper Archive which I can't access without paying a fee for instance. [ http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results?basicsearch=%22frensham%20place%22&frontpage=false] None of the books that the school and building are mentioned in are out of copyright so a local editor is required to check those sources. Dahliarose (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To Bob Re-born: There are lots of essays on the notability of schools but nothing which is policy. The whole subject is currently being discussed at Village_pump_(policy). You can't use the type of school as a measure of its notability. Generally speaking the older the school and the more notable alumni, the more likely you are to find references to establish notability. Dahliarose (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I expect at least the equivalent of two substantial feature articles in a regional or national (not local) newspaper or magazine, or chapters overwhelmingly devoted to the subject in two serious books, or two MAJOR prestigious awards awarded by the government (not local) or a MAJOR educational organization. The sources you have provided do not represent SUBSTANTIAL coverage of the school itself. They are either routine, trivial, passing, tangential or of limited readership or impact, and thus of little value in establishing notability. Oh, and "jack shit" means "absolutely nothing at all". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an expectation well above that of our notability guidelines. I don't consider "readership or impact" to be important, or expect chapters dedicated to the school. A few paragraphs of coverage in two or three reliable secondary sources is fine by me, as long as the contents of the article are verifiable by reliable sources, primary or secondary. Your expectations also seem largely based on US public schools (there are no "prestigious awards" from the government for private educational establishments in Britain) and thus do not translate to this case. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It is part of the biographies of famous people to know about their education, and I find it to be an interesting link that B. H. Liddell Hart, the eminent British military historian, is among the alumni. I would say that American readers should bear in mind that "prep school" in England, in this instance, means ages 2-13, not the typical American prep school of 13-18.  The article has several new inline citations, but if it is not kept, then some of the material should go into Farnham instead. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A clearly notable school from a historical perspective. WP:ORG states that the historical value of the subject of an article be considered for claims of notability (besides the obvious high educational value, which are also pretty clear). WP:NRVE states that citations detailing notability don't need to be extant in the article, but it is pretty clear that such citations would exist. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 23:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: per Dominus  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Dahliarose has done some really great work rescuing this article. Now I'm torn. As an article about a building it is well referenced and and an interesting read. As an article about a school it is still non-notable. So although I am not changing my nomination as such, I do think that the article should be kept as "Frensham Place", an article about a building with a long history that most recently includes use as a school. The school itself could redirect to the article about the building and could still contain a reasonable amount of information about the school. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that having a Frensham Place article is a gr8 idea. There seems to be a real issue with the idea that 'old' schools are somehow notable. An article about a school should not be focussed mainly on the history. It should be about the school, the people, the students, the curriculum, its wider community. In many of the recent 'contentious' AfDs we have had instances of the referenced history section covering entirely different schools. The current references are not about the school.Fmph (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with these contentious school AfDs is that people have been voting delete purely on the basis of a school being a "primary school". It's not that we are writing about different schools. It is just that schools have evolved over the years and the names often change. Primary schools are a relatively recent innovation. In the past, in the UK at least, there was normally just one or two schools in each town or village that all children attended up to the age of 12 or 14 or whatever the school-leaving age was at the time. With a growing population the original school buildings outgrow their purpose. New secondary schools get built and the old school building gets a new use as a primary school. Nominators are failing to understand this and can't find sources because they're looking under the wrong name. The history of schools is often the most interesting part of the articles, and probably the most encyclopaedic and useful information. Dahliarose (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I did in fact create a page for Frensham Place redirecting to the school a few days earlier. It is indeed the history that gives the school its notability but as the building is currently used as a school then I would have thought it would make more sense to have the school page as the target rather than the house. There is actually a lot more that could be written about the present-day school. There is a lot of source material in the inspection report. The school won a county athletics championship (county in the UK being equivalent to a US state) and several medals in national preparatory school competitions. The alumni also really need to have a home on a school page. Dahliarose (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A UK county is not the equivalent of a US State. It's the equivalent of a US county. England, Scotland Wales and NornIron are the UK equivalent of a state. The idea that winning one county athletics championship makes a school in any way notable is farcical. The alumini can quite happily have a category of their own which is all they would need. Honestly Dahlia, you need to bring some perspective to this. Fmph (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not farcical at all to compare UK counties with US states, at least in terms of population. Surrey has a population of 1,127,300, which is significantly greater than the populations of some US states (Alaska, Vermont or Wyoming, for example), and winning a county championship is a relatively big deal in UK school sports, even at a prep. school level. --He to Hecuba (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you compare one of the largest UK counties (populationwise) with the smallest in the US? And you think thats a reasonable comparison? And surely if such competitions were significant, they would have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, wouldn't they? Which they don't. And the reason is obvious to anyone who looks the issue. The simple reason is that there is not a universal buy-in to such competitions across the county.
 * An inspection report is a reliable source. These were the key sporting achievements highlighted by the inspector. Surrey, being in prime commuter belt, must have the highest number of private schools in the country so winning a county-level championship is a major achievement. Winning medals at national level is also a significant achievement. I've just added another interesting little story to the article. A former pupil from the school featured on TV in the Antiques Roadshow and the story was reported in the Daily Mail. I don't see the point in having a whole page used by with a category for just a handful of alumni. The article as it now stands is already substantial enough to warrant a page in its own right and is supported by a wide variety of both national and local references. Don't forget that many of the key resources such as the archives of local newspapers are not available online and many of the key national newspapers are behind paywalls. Dahliarose (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another possible explanation, and one which I believe is far more likely. They were not the key sporting achievements. Rather, they were the only sporting achievements. The 'championships' referred to are not countywide at all. The are the "West Surrey athletic championships" which are run by the Independent Association of Preparatory Schools. Now, IAPS are not in any way noted as an athletics governing body. No, they are in fact a business whose survival depends on members subscriptions, their members being the fee-paying prep schools of West Surrey and England. And, as anyone who knows the area should know, West Surrey is a rather nebulous concept which seems to have been dreamt up by IAPS. It's not an administrative region in either local government, education management or sports administration. In fact a google on the term gives a total of 6 hits. Thats how notable these 'championships' actually are. Please lets stop pretending there is something notable about this. Fmph (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And while we are on it, lets be clear that access to and entry into these championships will be restricted to those children whose parents don't want them to mix with the really athletic oiks down at the local comp. So the standard of competition is unlikely to be very strong.Fmph (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2.3 "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". The nomination tells us this quite clearly: "I didn't want to nominate but tried the merge procedure only to be continually reverted by Dahliarose.". Warden (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Compromise - I have been convinced by Fmph that the school does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirement. Therefore I suggest that we merge the content about the school to Farnham (only one or two sentences is required). Then an article about the school building, which I think most of us would agree is notable, can be created at Frensham Place, which will cover the school briefly as well. In this way we can give the school the same level of coverage while having an article about the arguably more notable buildings instead. The problem with keeping this article is that while there is a lot of verifiable information about it, nothing (perhaps apart from the ILN article, which is outdated) goes above the significant coverage bar. The alumni will be well served by a category. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely worded. That's pretty much what I suggested but you said it so much better and I fully support the idea. --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The most recent ISI report on the school is 17 pages long and contains masses of detail - ample to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The suggestion to merge into Farnham is not sensible because, during the pre-war period, the school was located elsewhere - at Guildford.  The proposal would thus not be a compromise but would just mung the contents for no better reason than to satisfy an arbitrary hatred of articles about schools.  That would be contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment One of the problems I've found in researching this school is with the name. It seems to have been known mostly as "Edgeborough" rather than "Edgeborough School" which rather complicates the searches. I've now uncovered a number of other quite distinguished alumni from the time when the school was in Guildford. The quantity of alumni is now such that there really ought to be an article about the school that they all attended. One of the alumni was the recipient of a Victoria Cross and as far as I can gather the medal is now owned by the school. I feel sure that local sources must exist. The problem is that the school was most notable in the earlier part of the twentieth century for which online sources are not easily available. If it was the 19th century I could search the British Library newspaper collection. A local editor is really needed with access to all the books and local sources. Dahliarose (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, none of that affects its notability one shred given that notability is not inherited. Presumably you have added this alumni information to all the bio articles concerned, which is where this information is normally kept on Wikipedia? Cant you find anything about the school itself, rather than the pupils who attended it when they tiny children? Fmph (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to without access to local sources. I'd suggest my/Bob's compromise for the moment until someone gets round to doing some research on the school's history. --He to Hecuba (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I have access to local sources, and I cannot find anything substantial about the school in any of them. Have you particular local sources in mind that I can go and check? Fmph (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Local newspaper archives would be a good place to start, + any local history academic publications. --He to Hecuba (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fmph, perhaps you could tell us first which local sources you have checked which have produced negative results. When researching it's always important to keep a note of negative searches so that other researchers don't have to duplicate the work. Local newspapers are largely unindexed and searchable only on microfilm in in the relevant reference libraries so this would be a major undertaking. Dahliarose (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have checked both local newspaper archives and local history group but without success. As Dahlia points out the local newspaper archives are on microfiche, unindexed and incomplete. Which is why I was asking for some hints as to what I should be looking for and where. But let me be clear, I'm not sitting for hours in front of a microfiche on the off chance. You may be right. There may well be references in those archives. But there may not be. There may be references in the archives to other far more notable subjects. So where do we pitch our limited efforts? Fmph (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I had never heard of this school, but now that I have read the article it seems quite interesting, and I notice that no fewer than four of its Old Boys are/were rather famous people. That alone makes it sufficiently notable as far as I am concerned. Surely the history counts for something, however minor the school may be today. I never understand why some people seem so keen to delete stuff that is not doing any harm. I also find the sneering, aggressive tone of some people here offensive: please read Civility. -- Alarics (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To He to Hecuba - From an editorial point of view it does not seem logical to make Frensham Place the focus of the article. Frensham Place is just one of the many school buildings. The business listings actually list it as Frensham Place within Edgeborough School. The problem with the article as it now stands is the over-focus on Frensham Place. There is however plenty of material that could be added about the school from reliable sources. This is mainly in the form of descriptive encyclopaedic material that we include in all school articles, eg, a description of the school and its facilities and something about the curriculum. I will have a go at doing this when I have more time. The alumni just wouldn't work editorially as a category. The alumni are usually the key focus of any school article. If you read any newspaper article on a school they invariably cite the the famous alumni if there are any (or at least the British press do). The reader wants all the alumni together on the same page. If they're on a category page you have to click on each person in turn to find out who they are. I'm not quite sure why we have categories for alumni as they seem somewhat redundant. While notability is not inherited the cumulative effect of multiple notable alumni is important because the more notable people who attend a school the more likely it will be written about. I think we all agree that local sources for a large school like this will exist to enable the article to be further expanded. Here's a good example of what can be done when a local editor is able to research a school from local sources Articles for deletion/Hyde Park Junior School (2nd nomination). Even without any additional material the school still satisfies WP:N as it currently stands, and is already far more notable than many of the bog standard high schools and secondary schools on which we already have articles.  From a purely pragmatic point of view there seems little point in cutting an article up in the short term when there is clearly scope for expansion. Dahliarose (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re:famous people went there argument...remember that notability is not inherited  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not seem to me right that "notability is not inherited" should apply in such as case as this. The notability guideline at WP:ORG (which doesn't appear to say anything specifically about schools) says of this doctrine: "If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member." That does not seem to me to be the same kind of thing as several people attending a school who all went on to become famous in adult life, making the school retrospectively notable. -- Alarics (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep 2.3 I agree with Warden that SK2.3 is the best outcome for the encyclopedia here.  AfD is for articles with serious problems, and given that editors are here because of a content dispute, I think that we want to discourage the use of AfD for such.  Three editors have written down the word "delete" in bold without providing reasons to justify the removal of the edit history for this material.  In other words, in all cases, even with the arguments made, we want to keep the redirect and the edit history for this material, so there is nothing to delete.  As for the nominator's WP:Merge and Delete preference to bring an end to the content dispute, "The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Document License (GFDL), which Wikipedia uses to license all of its content, both have provisions requiring that the attribution history of an article be preserved."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - historic school that now meets WP:OR. Kudos to Dahliarose for some great work! TerriersFan (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have now added a further section to the article, backed up by several sources, to give an overview of the school to redress the problem of the article being over-focused on Frensham Place. The article satisfies both WP:N and WP:ORG. Dahliarose (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Id have to disagree. IMHO, both references count as self-published sources. The 2nd is the annual report of the charitable trust who actually owns the school and the first is its profile on the ISC website. The ISC is a trade body and these profiles are written by the schools themselves. ISC do not send teams of inspectors out checking all the facts. This is the private education business. If the want to spin their profiles in as positive light as possible, they will. Fmph (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could I suggest that you read Identifying reliable sources. A self-published source would be the school's own website or a newsletter published by the school. Such sources have to be used with caution but can still be used as a source for certain types of information. The two sources I've provided in this section are independent of the school. The second report is the charitable trust's report to the Charities Commission, the regulatory authority for charities in the UK who are required to ensure that charities are run effectively: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/. It is a reliable source for the type of information provided, as is the Independent Schools Council. Why should you possibly think that such responsible third-party organisations would publish inaccurate information? Dahliarose (talk) 20:55, 19 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.