Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raynes Park High 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Raynes Park High School

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No asserted notability, unsourced and full of the most unappealing schoolboy drivel, though some of this was removed here. Still a lot of unencyclopedic content, though. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep High schools are inherently notable as per long-established concensus and an article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: per lack of any articulation of notability, lack of sources and lack of a guideline establishing 'inherent notability' (consensus changes by sufficient people saying 'I don't agree', so I'm registering my disagreement with this one). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep. I have tidied the article, the school is a comprehensive school, it holds the Sports Mark, it has FA Charter standard, it has Design Technology status, all such schools in the UK have so far been deemed notable which I am aware does not mean this one is but deleting this school would set a very unfortunate precedent. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep looks notable and thanks for removing the drivel. Unfortunately, there are millions more articles full of it, still needing to be cleaned up.  JBsupreme (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: still no secondary sources, so still no establishment of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A very important point; my one precisely! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete High schools are not inherently notable. Google shows WP as its first hit, and no other sources which provide independent third-party reliable sources with enough material for this ever to be more than a stub. GNews has a few links to articles such as this and this. Fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I wasn't aware that being a stub is a reason to delete, WP is not the first hit at Google Merton Council is. The article is now referenced by Merton, Ofsted, Direct Gov, E Teach and the BBC. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per consensus high schools are notable. ArcAngel (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps provide a link to the policy/guideline which confirms this consensus, for those who don't trust vague references? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Quoting from WP:SCHOOLS In general, tertiary degree-awarding institutions and senior secondary schools are considered notable. 'Senior secondary schools' exclude middle schools and schools that do not educate to at least grade 9/age 15. They include high schools in the US and grammar schools and comprehensive schools in Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK, for example. . Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The page you quote from is marked with a large red "X" and is clearly labelled, "failed to reach consensus" - is that the source of the consensus referenced above? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, cutting sarcasm. No I was merely indicating what many contributors feel about secondary schools. I have no idea what percentage of UK and US 'secondary' and 'high' schools have a listing in Wikipedia but it would be the majority. There is nothing to be gained by deleting this one. Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on WP:SCHOOLS and User:Paste's research.   Th e S te ve   18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: (i) WP:SCHOOLS failed to gain consensus, (ii) this school fails it anyway as it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." The passage quoted above was merely an "indicator" not a criterion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - not only a high school but a specialist school with Sports Mark status. This is a former grammar school which adds to its notability. It is also the only school I have come across with a Guinness World Record which is a clear claim to notability. sources available to meet WP:ORG.TerriersFan (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —TerriersFan (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but not because it's "inherently notable". Again, this is a case where "high school" has a different meaning in Britain and Australia than it does in the United States and Canada.  As the article points out, the students are aged 11 to 16.  Does that mean that British people are smarter than Americans, since most Americans don't graduate from high school at age 16, or that Brits are less educated because they don't go beyond "Year 10".  No.  However, as Terriers points out, this school has demonstrated notability on its own merits. Mandsford (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is an interesting and important secondary school with a long history. As with many historic schools, it has undergone a name change in recent years. There are a number of Google hits for its old name "Raynes Park County Grammar School" such as this one from the National Archives' website . There are also a number of what look like important alumni. The change to 11-16 education will have been a recent innovation, and the children will presumably move on to the local sixth form college. It is meaningless to make comparisons with American schools as the terminology is completely different in the two countries. 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: if the notability of the topic is asserted to be due to its history under other names, then both the name-change and the prior history must be discussed, and sourced, in the article. All these unsubstantiated claims about "Sports Mark", "FA Charter standard" & "Design Technology status" means very little to those not intimately involved in the UK school system. To have actual meaning, they need to be described in the article, with sources and with links that explain their context (not random links to semi/un-related topics as has been done to date). Articles need to clearly articulate notability -- not leave both readers and AfD commentors to guess what it might be. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sportsmark is sourced; design college status and the FA award (and other awards) are sourced by the Oftsed report. If you are not familiar with, for example, "Design Technology status" then follow the link. Sure the article needs expanding and better in-line sourcing but this is a reason for expansion not deletion and I look forward to your contribution in this regard. TerriersFan (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Design Technology' in the article links to Technology College. 'FA' above links to this disambiguation page, which contains no relevant link. One would normally expect schools to receive all sorts of minor accreditations. Were the accreditations notable, one would expect to see them documented in secondary sources (not just primary sources such as Oftsed, or similar regulatory bodies) -- an expectation that wikipedia itself explicitly makes. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:22, 5 February 2009

(UTC)
 * Speedy Keep It's snowing and so this school should be closed. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for better or worse, call it consensus or practice, high schools are kept - no reason to depart from that practice (or consensus) here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:20, 7 February 2009 (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.