Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etonbury Academy


 * 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Etonbury Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage.

Sources in the article are from the school itself, and government reports.

BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV. There are is normal mill coverage about a construction project in local news, but no SIGCOV.

This is a nice, normal school, not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy ::  talk  21:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  21:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  21:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Coming to this article as a regular editor of schools, I immediately have a problem with the Politically inspired press release. I will delete that as it is used as WP:PROMOTION and shows WP:BIAS in the way it selectively quotes from solid reliable sources. As to AfD, I suggest everyone reads carefully the AFD help Ofsted reference alone is a sufficient reliable source for our purposes, I am happier when more are found. So I looked and with the predecessor school there are 5 online, covering he period 2004- 2020. We are here to evaluate if sources exist, not whether they have been cited. To say it is a nice school is a WP:POV, and an unsourced statement, and really irrelevant. The phrase 'run of the mill' has no weight in a AfD discussion. In addition to what the inexperienced editors have included in this article, a focus of interest is the classification as an extended secondary school with a most unusual age range. The building project alone will have sources on contract letting, planning appraisal. As it say in theAFD help articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, this is the correct way forward. ClemRutter (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * tag for cleanup or attention
 * Redirect to Central_Bedfordshire per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG.  Orville talk 05:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Available sources sufficient to establish notability, as with any other British secondary school. Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment A question regarding whether Ofsted reports should be considered independent sources demonstrating notability has been posted to Reliable sources/Noticeboard for discussion.  // Timothy :: t | c | a  01:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is independently sourced and proven notable. Bleaney (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have expanded this article with independent sources which I believe further prove notability. Bleaney (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2021 (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.