Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Joseph's Catholic Primary School, Bracknell


 * 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 Bracknell. Simple data infodumps do not establish notability, regardless of the reliability or "big name" of the source. No evidence of anything beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage = failure to pass WP:GNG. Merging content if desired can be done from history (don't forget attribution). The Bushranger One ping only 12:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

St Joseph's Catholic Primary School, Bracknell

 * – ( 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) 05:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect to Bracknell Fmph (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The school is notable per the WP:GNG, being covered in detail by reliable sources such as the BBC. Our editing policy is to retain sourced information, not to delete it. Warden (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG requires significant coverage. A listing on the BBC school performance tables does not constitute significant coverage. Fmph (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. WP:GNG defines what is meant by significant coverage in WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material..  The BBC page about this school addresses the subject directly in detail and the school is the main topic of that page.  As an example, the page tells us that 32.3% of the pupils had special educational needs.  This means that we can repeat this fact in our article without original research.  And the BBC is just one example.  There are multiple Ofsted reports on the school and the most recent one is a comprehensive report which is 10 pages long.  The claim that detailed sources are lacking is blatantly false. Warden (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ofsted reports do not count as significant coverage by any sense of even a vivid imagination. neither does a BBC print dump from a DfE database. Fmph (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you say so? The BBC and Ofted are independent professionals.  If they determine that facts about a school are worthy of publication then who are you to say otherwise?  This is not a vote and policy-based arguments are preferred.  Subjective dislike of a topic is not sufficient grounds for deletion.  Warden (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC doesn't determine any facts about the school. They just publish the DfE stats. WP:CONSENSUS is that primary schools are inherently non-notable. Is that policy based enough for you? Fmph (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability (schools) is a failed proposal because it failed to establish a consensus view. The idea of inherent non-notability is a nonsense because the WP:GNG will trump it if detailed sources can be found, as in this case. Warden (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like it has consensus here, doesn't it? Fmph (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is consensus. Just about everybody, including the nominator, thinks that this should be a blue link not a red link.  This means that the motion to delete the article has no support and we will be keeping this content.  What happens to it is then a matter of ordinary editing.  Some editors favour merger into Bracknell but they don't seem to realise that the LEA is Bracknell Forest and so that's the next tier up for education purposes, not Bracknell.  But, if you go further back to the founding of the school, the LEA would have been Berkshire.  That's the trouble with such mergers - they take no account of the changing structures and organisations over time and so fail to provide the historical perspective which is expected of an encyclopedia.  It is simplest to keep the content at the most appropriate level; the one which is most constant and which has the most sensible title.  As the BBC presents information about this school at this title, then this demonstrates that this is the appropriate level in the judgement of professionals. Warden (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its very simple actually. No need to get confused or upset about LEAs or anything. Just merge anything encyclopaedic into the locale article, in this case Bracknell. Works every time. Fmph (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or possibly redirect. The BBC article is not in depth coverage of the school from which anything can be taken without having to crunch some numbers. It's proof it exists, but I don't see it as meeting the GNG. Ofsted reports I think can certainly support a school article, but, by themselves, I don't believe they contribute to the breadth of coverage required by the GNG. For that I'd want to see a couple of articles in regional or better press with meaningful coverage of the school in them. So I go for delete in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The GNG does not require "breadth of coverage" or anything like it. What it wants to see is detail and we have that. Warden (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It wants to see "significant" coverage - which it takes to mean sources which "address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content" (from WP:GNG). I would suggest that BBC league tables do require work to extract meaningful content. That leaves us with Ofsted. The GNG also says that "multiple sources are generally expected", from which I take to mean that some form of breadth if generally considered helpful when determining if something meets the GNG. That means I'm doubtful whether this primary school meets the GNG. It certainly doesn't meet the general consensus that primary school articles need something more than an Ofsted report and something in the very local press to make them notable. I appreciate entirely what you're saying, but I think you need something a bit more solid to make your case on here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are multiple Ofsted reports written by different authors at different times. They are comprehensive and detailed and so amply satisfy the WP:GNG.  Refusal to accept these sources seems to be blatant prejudice contrary to policy.  When you see what pathetic sources are accepted for athletes, musicians and porn actors, it is quite incredible that an educational project like Wikipedia should be so disparaging of reputable educational establishments.  It's not clear what causes this prejudice but I suppose it's that there are many young people editing Wikipedia who are still in education and familiarity breeds contempt. Warden (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I accept them as sources, but argue that there are not representative, by themselves, of significant coverage that would meet WP:ORG and so on. Whilst I sympathise with a pov which argues that standards of notability for, say, football players is rather lower, that doesn't mean that our standards for schools is necessarily wrong. I'd love to see a well written, properly sourced primary school article which makes claims for notability (hey, I'd love to see a few more secondary school ones for that matter). Where they exist I'll support them if I think they're notable. I don't think we have notability here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Bracknell where the school  is already  mentioned, according  to  established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to  article about  school  district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to  include the  template on  the redirect  page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: per Blue  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  19:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per warden, it is sourced and therefore meets GN.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bracknell, where it is. This is the best solution for Primary Schools.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No claim made as to why this school is notable. Ofsted reports are a statutory requirement for all schools. They are thus created by virtue of a schools existence and not notability. Similarly, multiple Ofsted reports cannot be taken to "amplify" notability as the law requires inspections (and thus reports) to be carried out on a basis of typically every 3 years. In reality as reports are a "snapshot in time", a new inspection report should be taken as replacing an old one for the purposes of notability (and for that matter most content in the article).
 * "Outstanding" is one of 4 Ofsted ratings and equates to some 10-20% of schools. The introduction copied from the Ofsted report is almost meaningless, are these auto-generated? - they certainly could be - size "average" (what is average?) Special educational needs "above average" (what is average and what are the figures for this school? - report doesn't say), English as second language "well above average" (ditto),etc, etc. Equally the article could do with a good clean down, Are the builders really still there after 3.5 years? What is a "medium sized hall"? I'm taking Westminster Hall as my frame of reference. Remove all that and we have 2 or 3 sentences. As for talk about athletes, musician and porn stars WP:OTHERCRAP is not a reason to keep. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2011 (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.