Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marton-Cum-Grafton Primary 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   redirect to Marton, Harrogate. The clear consensus (delete plus redirect plus merge) is that an article on this school is not warranted. As the redirect/merge suggestion is reasonable and no convincing argument has been given why it would not be a reasonable alternative to deletion, the result shall be a redirect. Editors are free to merge content from the school article (viewable in its history) to the redirect target. Mkativerata (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Marton-Cum-Grafton Primary School

 * – ( 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) 20:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable per WP:GNG as it is documented in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Our editing policy is to keep such topics. Warden (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No claim as to why this school is notable. Other than possibly being the shortest article on Wikipedia ever, I cant find anything to grant it notability. Ofsted Report linked above is produced by virtue of the school existing and isn't a demonstration of notability.  In reality there isn't much of value in the report that could be used in the article. The more of those reports I read, the more convinced I become that a substantial proportion of each report is actually automatically generated by a computer Pit-yacker (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Amongst many details, that report tells us that the school is free from bullying; that the pupils behave especially well; that they share ideas with confidence; that they listen to others with interest; that they are very polite and learn with enthusiasm. How very different from what happens here... Warden (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and unless these points are quoted verbatim in context, what meaning do they really carry? For example, out of the context of this report and other Ofsted reports how do we measure behaviour? Pit-yacker (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Ofsted reports are authoritative - they determine and define the quality of the school for official purposes and seem to be taken seriously by everyone else. They are thus superior to arbitrary journalism and vested interests as sources.  They are the best possible source and so it is a nonsense to say that they are inadmissable. Warden (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You side stepped my point. I also didn't say they are inadmissible. What I am saying is that without any other significant coverage, it is impossible to write a good article.  That is probably half the reason we have policies requiring wide ranging coverage? I am also saying that I think text in Ofsted reports needs to be used with extreme care. Yes, the report mentions that the pupils are well behaved.  However, outside the context of this report and the wider Ofsted inspection system, I think care needs to be taken as to how that is used such that we don't misrepresent what the inspectors were trying to say or mean. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not established. An OFSTED report proves that the school exists, it doesn't establish notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's like saying that the Racing Post doesn't establish notability for a race horse. It is nonsense because Her Majesty's Inspector's are the experts in this topic - they spend days at the school studying it and then writing it up.  What better source could we possibly have?  And what policy do you derive your bizarre theory from or did you just make it up?  Warden (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OFSTED are legally obliged to write reports for every school in England. I don't think that every school in England is automatically notable.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And this legal obligation arises because the powers-that-be decided that this is important information which should be made public. The BBC report such details as do other news organisations such as The Northern Echo. All these various authorities and media consider that this school is of some significance.  Who are you to decide differently?  You have written dozens of articles about horses such as Raven's Pass.  Personally, I am not the slightest bit interested in any of these horses &mdash; they seem of little significance outside of racing and betting circles.  What is your policy basis for saying that short-lived horses are in but a school which has existed for over 150 years and educated thousands of pupils is out?  Warden (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: An OFSTED report does not make a school notable, as all schools have OFSTED reports. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, schools for less than 5 pupils or for adults would be outside the scope of Ofsted inspection of this sort. And, of course, schools outside England and Wales.  School inspection is obviously an expensive service - Ofsted costs about £250M per year - and so is reserved for cases which are considered significant, i.e. notable. Warden (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Acccording to the Guardian the smallest school in England is Holy Island Church of England First School. It has an Ofsted report. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably they are just talking about registered schools. There are large numbers of trade schools, language schools, tutoring services, Sunday schools &c. which would not be so registered. Warden (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? The concept of a "Sunday School" being treated as a real school really is hilarious. This isn't the nineteenth century (where the only education many children got was Sunday School) any more you know? Pit-yacker (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Here's a current example of an active Sunday school which has many features of a school - governors, headmistress &c.  It is not inspected by Ofsted. Warden (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this comes to the point below - just because you attach the term school to something doesn't mean its a school in the terms most people would understand. Many churches have "Sunday schools" with "teachers", "classes", "head teachers" and committees. However, in some cases these "teachers" have little or no qualification beyond GCSE, let alone a qualification to "teach". In reality they aren't schools as most people would understand them - they aren't giving a formal education of any description and they aren't a substitute for a formal education.  In the better cases they are more akin to private study groups, in the worse cases they are informal baby-sitting services.  Whilst the lack of information makes it  difficult to assess, the school you give appears to fall into the former category.Pit-yacker (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, your point is slightly misleading. Ofsted only covering England and Wales has more to do with the UK's slightly quirky constitutional make-up, than factors such as notability or cost. Schools in Scotland come under the remit of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which provides the equivalent function to Ofsted. Pit-yacker (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wales is separate now too, as is Northern Ireland. And other countries and states have their own particular arrangements.  The point is that not all schools have Ofsted reports as Tigerboy claims.  Warden (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually said "every school in England" see above.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not true. For example, the London School of English is not inspected by Ofsted. Warden (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and it has a minimum enrollment age of 18.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And so, given the bizarre ageism which seems to abound in this area, we would presume notability for that institution, even though it is not inspected in the same thorough way by Ofsted. The age of pupils seems to have nothing sensible to do with notability and so should be dismissed as a reason to delete. Warden (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * the point is that the "London School of English" it is not what is called a "school" in common British usage. Ofsted also has no authority over driving schools, card schools or schools of fish. Or is that "speciesism". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a school. It has teachers, it has classes, it educates, &c.  It is officially accredited in various ways but it's just not within the parameters of Ofsted.  Warden (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Run of the mill; routine report from government agency is not "significant coverage." Neutralitytalk 03:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Run of the mill is just an essay not a policy. An Ofsted report is significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.  There's nothing there about routine or government agency so you're just making things up. Warden (talk) 08:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * England and Wales have over 16,000 maintained Primary schools. Every one of them has an Ofsted report. That makes it routine.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to marton. Non  notable schools are generally  not  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) 06:41, 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) 06:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge to Marton, Harrogate as is normal for articles on non-notable schools. An OFSTED report does not establish notability because OFSTED is legally obliged to inspect all schools in England (for pedants, Section 5 of the Education Act 2005 obliges the Chief Inspector to inspect "every school in England to which this section applies", namely community, foundation and voluntary schools, community and foundation special schools, maintained nursery schools, academies, city technology colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and certain other special schools). Warden's examples of entities with "school" in the name which are not inspected by OFSTED do not change this point. If we allowed OFSTED reports to confer notability then every school in England would be notable, something which is clearly outside previous consensus. Hut 8.5 16:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to Marton, Harrogate as is normal for articles on non-notable schools, and as Hut 8.5  says.
 * merge or redirect I'm a little surprised at the argument from my good friend the col., proposing that a routine bureaucratic report is sufficient for notability  DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My argument is policy-based, deriving from WP:GNG and WP:PRESERVE. There seems to be no logical difference in principle between these inspection reports and other sources upon which we base articles such as census returns and book reviews.  They are not routine in that such detailed independent reports are not commonly published for libraries, say.  That's because libraries are not as important as schools in public life and so millions of pounds are not spent inspecting them and publishing the results. Warden (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Every state school  in England gets an Ofsted report every  three years or so, and sometimes with  interim  reports. The reports basically state: "This school has classrooms, teachers, and students, and should do  better at [...] and is graded X". It  establishes the existence of the school but  not  uniqueness or notability  for anything in  particular. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. The key word in WP:GNG is significant in the term "...significant coverage...". An Ofsted report per se is not significant, although it may in some circumstances be significant where it establishes evidence of uniqueness or notability. Fmph (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Ofsted reports being used as sources. But they do not establish notability, for the reasons explained above. And I don't think I would get an article on my great-grandfather saved on the grounds that he was mentioned in the census returns of 1881, 1891 and 1901 (Multiple RS!) Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Ofsted reports certainly establish uniqueness &mdash; they provide the Unique Reference Number and other particular attributes of the school such as its location and head. By grading the school and reporting on its performance in detail, they provide much material for our articles.  This is what is required for significance which "means that sources address the subject directly in detail".  The trouble with the nay-sayers here is that they think that words like notability and significance mean that topics should be special &mdash; unusual, exciting, extraordinary, &c.  But they don't and the guideline makes this clear by saying "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity...".  And that's why we have articles like Calomarde, Aragon - a place of 73 inhabitants - fewer than the number of pupils in this school.  To discriminate against this school as a topic when there are substantial, independent sources which cover it in detail is contrary to numerous policies: WP:CENSOR, WP:NPOV, WP:PRESERVE.  And there is no policy-based argument for deletion - not one.  Uniqueness is not a policy.  Mundaneness is not a policy.  Personal preference is not a policy. Warden (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting  that  there should be an article on  every  one of the 21,398 primary  schools in  the UK? Are they  all  unique beyond their URN? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should have an article for every one of them, just as we expect to have an article for every Polish village (about 150,000 settlements ) or every type of fungus (about 1,500,000 species). As this is the English Wikipedia then English schools are a far more relevant topic to its readership than clathrus treubii or Kami-Katsura Station. Warden (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds remarkably POINTy to me... Consensus has determines that primary schools are non-notable unless they fulfil the GNG, which this clearly doesn't. If you disagree, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies), which is the appropriate guideline for schools. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Merge, of course, per all the above and WP:OUTCOMES. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:48, 4 January 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.