Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bishop's Stortford 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. Jaranda wat's sup 02:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bishop's Stortford High School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable school - no notable staff, no notable alumni, indeed no claims of notoriety. Not every school is notable, and this isn't one of those that are. Bigdaddy1981 08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Patently fails WP:Notability per a complete lack of significant coverage in independent sources. VanTucky  (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Insert usual H.S. args.; reheat, then add salt and some chives and a touch of vinegar. Sufficiently notable. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - rather than just stating that the school is notable, why not tell us here why it is. The article certainly doesn't. This isn't supposed to be a vote you know. Bigdaddy1981 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see some pepper is needed. I have no interest in sisyphian discussions over the same tiresome, dogmatic points about High School articles. See User:RJHall/High_Schools for my criteria. Your point about a "vote" is purely argumentative. Thanks. :-) &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - article states that an alumnus was Cecil Rhodes, for whom Rhodesia was named. Postcard Cathy 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The article only says that one of the Houses was named after Rhodes, not that he was an alumnus. VanTucky  (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it might help if people actually read the article in question --- Rhodes, as VanTucky  notes is not an alumnus. Bigdaddy1981 18:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I not only read the article, I even edited out some nonencyclopedic content (you won't catch me calling it the "C"-word) and added details about awards and championships the school has received. Based on the awards, championships and recognition the school has received, all of which is backed by reliable and verifiable independent sources, notability has been established to the Notability standard. Alansohn 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but some portions would need some clean-up and some expansion (like history section).--JForget 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   -- Bduke 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep over the bar, thanks to the awards--and being a well-written article helps as well. They undoubtedly have some notable alumni, and mention of them would and enough to the article to make it clearly a keep. The people using green and red marks do not impress me that their arguments are more weighty than the others.DGG (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This school clearly establishes that it merits an article based on the well-written material supported by multiple reliable independent sources. -- DS1953 talk  05:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn school). I have to say the first BT award listed is such a self-conscious reach for notability it made me lol. Eusebeus 09:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The events recently added in an attempt to lend notability to the article do not, as such, do so. All three of the "awards" mentioned were given to individuals not the school. If this was about the biography for those students or the teacher, it would certainly be applicable. But in my view, asserting notability through the minor achievements (none of which received significant coverage in multiple sources) of a couple individuals in a large educational institution is a laughable attempt to prop up a few individuals' extreme inclusionism when it comes to schools. VanTucky  (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stop wasting people's time with frivolous AfDs. &mdash;Xezbeth 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't a vote. "Stop wasting people's time" isn't a coherent argument for your suggestion. VanTucky  (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking the five seconds to give a cast-iron reason to keep this article is five seconds wasted. &mdash;Xezbeth 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, that's still not an argument for keeping the article. VanTucky  (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok ok, how's this one: It's a secondary school, Keep. I would put a nifty tick image too, but they cause unnecessary load and go against the whole "AfD is not a vote" thing. &mdash;Xezbeth 16:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What policy supports automatically keeping all secondary schools? VanTucky  (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CON. Not that anyone pays the slightest bit of attention to that any more.. &mdash;Xezbeth 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And where might conclusive evidence of this supposed project-wide consensus on the inherent notability of schools be found? The idea that there is general consensus on that matter is complete hogwash, as evidenced by this and every other recent AFD for a secondary school. If schools were inherently notable, they wouldn't be up for an AFD every single day. VanTucky  (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The recent improvements to this article have established the school's notability. The school has a number of awards, and the statements are well backed up by appropriate references. Dahliarose 23:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per the Ofsted report that states "This is a very good school which provides very good value for money and is highly thought of in the local community. The high quality of much of the teaching enables the students to achieve very well throughout the school." and notability separately established by multiple reliable sources. TerriersFan 23:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete a 'run of the mill' school with no claim to notability that I can see in the article Jack1956 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as again, now it asserts notability, as per Dahliarose, TerriersFan, DS1953 and DGG. While not all high schools are notable, I would say that WP can presume they are notable, unless shown to be so small, a wing of another school, or so new as to warrant exclusion. Bearian 14:28, 13 July 2007 (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.