Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodside Primary School, Grays


 * 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   merge to Thurrock. After a couple of well-thought-out notes on my talkpage, and a reconsideration of both the !votes here and the sources in the article, I agree that a merge is probably the correct outcome here. Black Kite 00:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Woodside Primary School, Grays

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article on an elementary school for which there does not seem to me to exist the substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources required by WP:ORG. My redirection to Grays (where the school was mentioned, although that section has since been moved to Thurrock) per the usual practice was reverted, so here we are. Deor (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Deor (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Despite the effort that has gone into this article, it does not meet the notability requirements set out in WP:ORG. This guideline states that the "organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."  It further adds that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.".  In this case, most of the sources available online (and those included in the article) are either incidental or not independent of the organisation (i.e. not a secondary source).  I have to conclude that, on the evidence, the subject does not meet the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.  A short reference to the school in the Grays and Thurrock articles would be appropriate.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are numerous references to the school in reliable secondary sources which are neither trivial nor incidental. There is coverage of current pupils, former pupils and teachers. For example:-


 * Thurrock Gazette - current pupil
 * Thurrock Gazette - former pupil
 * Gorkha Learning for Life - teacher


 * The process of inspection by Ofsted routinely generates independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. For example:-


 * BBC
 * Ofsted


 * The awards earned by the school have given rise to independent coverage in reliable secondary sources, For example:-


 * Arts Council


 * (The article lists a number of other awards, including Investors in People, Ormiston Education's Every Child Matters Quality Mark, Quality in Study Support, the Financial Management Standard in Schools and Healthy Schools,)


 * The various categories related to primary schools seems to suggest that there is no policy against articles about primary schools - for example, primary schools in Essex or primary schools in England. This school is at least as notable (if not more so) than the numerous primary schools that already exist - for example John Ball Primary School and Grange Primary School among a host of others.


 * Incidentally, I was the person who reverted the redirection mentioned above. The problem was that (a) the redirection did nothing with the existing content which consequently disapeared and (b) the redirection went to an innapropriate page (although Deor was not to know that). Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, they are secondary sources, but the school is not the subject of the coverage.  The subjects are the current and former student and the teacher.  The database of school scores is a reliable source, but doesn't support the notability of the school as such.  It's a reporting tool on a evaluation scheme, which is different if someone writes a independent article or review.  Remember that the guideline specifically says that ""trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." That there are other similar articles is not a valid argument for notability - we need to base our discussion on the guidelines (see WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are quite mistaken as the school is clearly the specific subject of the BBC coverage, say.  Colonel Warden (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I beleve a school is more than the bricks and mortar that make up its building. Pupils, teachers and other staff are part of the school. Former pupils are less clearly part of the school, but many educational institutions continue to regard former pupils as part of their community. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Grays, since there does not seem to be a "school district" as such, which is the usual merge target for articles about elementary schools. The two school articles mentioned above have apparently not been through AFD, and are just an "other stuff exists" weak argument to avoid at AFD. See Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which says "Most, but not all, schools for younger children don't meet this standard and are therefore frequently merged or redirected." See WP:ORG which says "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or local chapter of a club) may be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." The refs seem to be either local news coverage or directory type routine listings of test scores. Edison (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Speedily The Ofsted inspections such as this are independent and detailed sources of the highest quality which demonstrate the obvious notability of this academic establishment.  As the nomination states that this nomination was a response to a reverted edit,  it appears to be disruptive per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion or merger, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Colonel Warden (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment But, aren't these inspections carried out at all schools? If that is the case, then every (English) school is defacto notable (and given that there are similar such reviews in many other countries, it is by extension so) ... meaning that any school that had nothing more than a similar annual report would meet notability threshold.  I think the Wikipedia community has historically asked for more than that to establish notability, at least for schools. This may be a secondary source that is clearly independent of the school, but I don't think it would meet any definition of "substantial". LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, all schools and nurseries are inspected every 3 years or so. The BBC page similarly reports test results published for all schools by the government department each year. Kanguole 20:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I also fail to see how an editor who attempted a redirect, had it reverted, and then, rather than edit war, took this forward for community discussion, is somehow "disruptive". This appears to be following a fairly logical procedure that is in no way interfering with the improvement o the article, if it can be improved, or a hunt for confirmation of notability, provided such information can be found. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The nomination seems to be bad faith per WP:GAME because the nominator's action indicates that he wishes to redirect the article name and this action is not performed by deletion. Rather than engage in discussion at the article's talk page, as the other editor did and engage in proper dispute resolution such as calling for a third opinion or starting an RfC, he has taken the matter to an inappropriate forum.  This is forum shopping which is disruptive because it is uncivil and complicates the issue by spreading it across multiple venues.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Merge. Sources that equally cover every single school/street/politician/business/etc generally don't count towards notability, and articles about people who went to the school once certainly don't count. Common practice is that primary schools generally aren't notable unless there's more coverage than you average run-of-the-mill school would get. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Our notability guideline does not say this or anything like it. It is often the case that we cover all members of a category - all asteroids, all professional sportsmen, all living species, &c - even though most entries will be run-of-the-mill.  This is because we are an encyclopedia and so cover all significant knowledge, not just selected highlights.  The general principle of notability is that a topic is worthy of coverege if it has been noticed by the world.  This school has been noticed by reputable, national organisations such as the BBC and Ofsted who have written about it in detail and this is prima facie evidence that the topic is notable per the guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Query Could you point out where in policy it states It is often the case that we cover all members of a category ... because I couldn't find it anywhere. You note that a topic is worthy of coverege if it has been noticed by the world. .... The GNG presumption stipulation notes that even if a subject meets all of the criteria of the GNG, the community still has the final word on whether a standalone article is warranted.  Given that elementary schools have not had a perfect track record at AfD, I think it was a warranted posting. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comprehensive coverage is a matter of fact which may be verified by clicking the random article link. For example, I did that and my first hit was Outes.  That topic is not special in any way - it is just another place like any other.  And you'll find that most of our topics are like that - we don't restrict ourselves to just the most important members of each category.  Now it is a common fallacy to suppose that we require some degree of importance in a topic but this is explicitly refuted by WP:N which says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic...".  All that is required is some good sources.  We have that for this topic and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, comprehensive coverage depends on what the category is. It's well-established practice that we cover every settlement and MP and station and professional athlete and so on, but that's because consensus was that every item is this category should be considered notable. We do not write about every film ever made just because IMDB covers them all, nor do we write about every single Parliamentary candidate because papers issued by the returning officer covers them all (or even that this data is reproduced online by the BBC, Guardian etc.), nor do we write about every amateur sports team just because their results are routinely liested in a local paper. If you want to argue that the long-standing practice on notability of Primary Schools became wrong the moment the BBC chose to reproduce individual Osted results, fair enough, consensus can change, but I don't see any reason why this primary school should be treated differently from any other.
 * No, there is no notability guideline for schools as there is no well-established consensus for this class of topics. Please see WP:SCH which is clearly marked as a failed proposal.  We must therefore fall back upon the WP:GNG and this topic clearly passes this as there are independent, detailed and reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. You left out "significant" in your list of notability requirements. To be notable under WP:GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  The definition of significant goes on to say that no original research is necessary to extract content.  If you believe that the Osted results published by the BBC provide support for the whole article, then you are right.  But the Osted results don't support 99% of the article's content as it stands.  It says nothing about Arts, links, Neighbours, History, Ecology or any other aspect of the school, its community or curriculum.  So if you rely on Osted as a source, you have one sentence of the article supported.  And that one sentence, if read in isolation, would never pass a notability test.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As stated explicitly by WP:N, notability applies at the level of the article, not every sentence or paragraph. If the content currently seems unbalanced then we may improve the article by ordinary editing to increase the education-related content, as one would expect for an educational establishment.  As and when I find time, I may improve the article myself but it is unpleasant having to work when the article is threatened by editors who do nothing but criticise and urge that the work be destroyed. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove through WP:SCH, because failed proposals can means anything from outright opposition to lack of support that an extra policy is necessary to disagreements over the details of the policy. It most certainly does not mean that established practice should be instantly disregarded the moment the policy fails. If you don't mind me saying so, it is not helpful to insinuate, intentionally or not, that anyone arguing in favour of deletion is someone who does "nothing but criticise and urge that the work be destroyed". I certainly don't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And just to add I see nothing bad faith about this AfD. Taking an article to an AfD after a contested redirect seems no different than taking it to AfD after a contested prod. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * AFDs following PRODs are often bad faith too - a reflex, hostile escalation per WP:GAME and WP:BATTLEGROUND rather than a civil, thoughtful engagement with the topic and the editor who has opposed the PROD. That seems to be what we have in this case - a drive-by action based upon reflex and erroneous ideas about policy.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But your interpretation of bad faith nominations puts every deletion nomination as a bad faith one. Yes, proposing deletion in response to a content dispute of a notable article is a definite speedy keep, but when the dispute is over whether there should be an article at all, surely AfD is the logical place to make a decision. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes this bad faith is that the nominator first tried to edit the article. Only when he was thwarted did he decide that it should be deleted instead.  This seems to be disruption contrary to WP:POINT - invoking a process for tactical reasons, not sincere ones. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only edit the nominator attempted was a redirect, which seems very little different from proposing a deletion, wait to see if anyone objects, and taking it to AfD if you don't agree with the reasons. You may or may not consider that a reasonable procedure, but I do, and so, presumably, did the nominator of the AfD. WP:AGF please. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was made in support of my procedural motion that we speedily close this discussion rather than to cast aspersions upon the nominator's character, about which I have no particular opinion.  Per WP:SAUCE, if articles are open to criticism and deletion, then nominations are likewise open to criticism and peremptory closure.  AGF does not require us to accept everything that is put before us.  You are likewise free to criticise my motion and so we risk an infinite regress but so it goes... :) Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge. The school is not notable enough to warrant an article in its own right. If someone has the time or inclination the best solution would be to create a new article "Primary schools in the Thurrock Unitary Authority". We have a number of such articles along these lines such as Primary schools in Dacorum. If not the content should be merged with Grays or Thurrock Unitary Authority. Some of the content is trivial in nature and some is duplicated in other articles. Dahliarose (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your proposed article would not be notable as independent media organisations such as the BBC prefer to cover this field at the level of the school rather than some other invented level. Presumably they do this because that is what the readership wants - it is the natural basis of reporting and search.  The Grays article is not appropriate as that is a ragbag of local detail - X-factor, football, shopping centres and the like.  By filling that up with a perfunctory listing of every feature of the area, we would violate WP:NOTDIR.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to locality article, per consensus in this subject area. The only non-local secondary sources are the Ofsted inspection and the KS2 results, which are not enough to build an article from. The last three sections overlap substantially with the Terrel's Heath article.  Kanguole 09:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'merge; per above, wikipedia tends to not have articles on primary schools, only high schools. Okip  12:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Originally they didn't allow articles on high schools. Things change.  No shortage of space, nor reason to limit encyclopedic coverage of educational facilities.   D r e a m Focus  16:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Google news search for "woodside Primary School" AND "Grays" brings up this http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/4517518.Woodside_wins_gold_and_silver_awards/ which indicates notability. That and other coverage found is enough to convince me.  A book search shows one result, and no way to read it, it not available for preview, so I can't judge that.   D r e a m Focus  16:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this was nominated for deletion while the page was in the process of being expanded which is bad practice. It is now a nicely written page with sufficient sources to meet notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect -- so far, it looks like this school has been rated by a school rating agency, and mentioned in the town paper. Setting aside the comments above -- "I assume bad faith on the nominator's part!", "There's room for everything!", etc. -- what we have is a well-written article about what appears to be a completely average nursery/primary school.  I don't see anything amounting to significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and I can't imagine that this school's achievements (winning "the South Essex Girls' 7 a side football competition," "described at 'good' by Ofsted in 2004 and 2008," and so on) somehow make it inherently notable.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 21:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment My understanding is that notability guidelines ask for "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources ... not trivial or incidental" - (plural sources not multiple sources). Both the BBC and Ofsted provide significant coverage and they are reliable, independent secondary sources. The coverage in these sources is neither trivial nor incidental. My understanding is that the sources that establish notability do not necessarily have to be used in the article. Similarly, the references used to support text in the article do not all have to establish notability. There are many articles about "completely average" subjects that meet notabilty gudelines - for example minor MPs, small villages, lower league football players. No one is claiming that this school is world famous; merely that it meets notability guidelines. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But two of the examples you quote are unambiguous piece of Wikipedia policy, and the other isn't policy as such but is long-established practice. On the other end of the scale, Parliamentary candidates and elected Councillors have official documents written about them that get reproduced in secondary sources, as do any amateur sports teams whose local paper happens to write up their results, but policy is clear that they are not automatically notable. If your view is that Ofsted coverage makes all schools in the UK notable, go ahead and say so, but I think there's better arguments than that one. For what it's worth, I would consider Ofsted reports a primary source and the BBC a mere reproduction of a primary source. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The primary sources in such cases would be the work of the staff and pupils and the inspectors' notes on same. The inspection reports are written for distribution and publication and so seem to be a secondary source.  The BBC summaries and other reporting are then tertiary sources.  Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The closest precedent I can find in Wikipedia policy is footnote 2 of WP:OR. That lists official records as a primary source, are are census results, which most certainly are analysed prior to public release. Secondary sources are meant to interpret or analyse primary sources, so I wouldn't count a reproduction of Ofsted results as primary to secondary. (If the BBC was to start writing about the results, that would be a different matter.) However, I think this discussion isn't helpful. It is going way beyond using common sense and into dogmatic application of policy into areas that were almost certainly never considered when written. Any decision to include or not include primary schools should be based on whether it is in the interests of Wikipedia to do so, not who can out-do who on interpretations of notability guidelines. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Census results have been used as the basis for creating many thousands of articles about places and so are clearly well-accepted and adequate for our purposes. Inspection reports are superior as sources because they contain professional analysis and judgements, not just raw statistics.  They are published to be read because there is considerable interest in such material from parents, the teaching profession, the education bureaucracy, politicians, the press, &c. In summarising these reports, we perform a valuable public service which is directly supportive of Wikipedia's educational mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong way round, with respect. Whereas WP policy is that inhabited settlements are inherently notable, the census results are merely verification of that fact. The converse is not necessarily so, as to make sources confer inherent notability. As for "providing a valuable public service", there are arguably many cases in which we might do so, but WP:NOT tells us otherwise. Rodhull  andemu  23:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * NOT is not applicable as it nowhere states that we should not cover educational establishments. As we routinely cover colleges and secondary schools, we should cover primary schools too so that all tiers of education are properly documented here.  To arbitrarily exclude one tier is not policy and defies common sense.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: May I remind draw editors' attention to of the WP:BLUDGEON policy guideline essay?  Although it's not policy, it's a good idea to make your point and let the debate go its course.  That's what collaboration is about.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and is not Wikipedia policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Grays. This is the best solution for NN primary schools.  The article is unusually informative, but the school is still NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge appropriate referenced material to Grays. Based on those articles about elementary school which the community has previously accepted, IMO, I do not believe that this school rises to the level of notability that the community has come to accept.LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are a lot of contributions suggesting a merge with Grays. It is possible that editors suggesting this are being misled by the article's title. The school is not in Grays, but in Little Thurrock. If it survives this AfD, I will suggest a change of title. Grays is the post town in the school's address, but as the article on post towns points out a post town is for the convenience of the Post Office in sorting letters and can bring together otherwise unrelated places. Among existing articles, possible targets for a merge are Thurrock and Little Thurrock, although (IMO) there are issues with merging with either of these. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Unremarkable primary school. Basically every school gets rewards, and obviously every school is inspected. There is just nothing to suggest this school meets notability criteria. A few brief mentions in the local press != notable.  Aiken   &#9835;   23:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Grays. I start from the viewpoint that a primary school has to be really special to climb the hill of notability, and this one has no outstanding features that take it beyond the foothills. The article mentions little or nothing that could not be said of any other such school. Shame, because it's a well-constructed article, but notable it is not. Rodhull  andemu  22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you believe a primary school should be judged differently than a high school? And merge in this case means delete, there no way you are going to have any reasonable amount of the information here moved over there, and most likely nothing at all.   D r e a m Focus  03:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect or delete and redirect, as per WP:MILL, Coverage seems basically trivial, does not seem to me to establish notability. DES (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources = notable = article. Simple equation. This isn't a paper encylopaedia so we lose absolutely nothing by having a properly verified page here. Well-sourced content is so hard to find on this encyclopaedia. Please lets not delete what little of it there is. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2010 (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.