Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wycliffe CE 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 Shipley, West Yorkshire. Redirect as per WP:OUTCOMES. Though a user points to a "detailed report", that is a routine UK government document that confers no indication of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wycliffe CE 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) 20:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic appears to be notable as it is documented in detail by independent reliable sources such as this. Per WP:GNG and WP:PRESERVE it should therefore be kept, not deleted. Warden (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability. A quick search reveals little to nothing on the Internet that we could use to grant notability. Ofsted report linked above is a statutory requirement, thus there is one for every school in England.  It does little more than confirm the school's existence. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The report is of 16 pages and full of detail. For example, it tells us that the teachers use electronic whiteboards; that the school teaches French; that the pupils attend committees about the curriculum; that there is a school council; that there are well-attended after school clubs; and so on.  This is fundamental information about the operation of the school in its role of providing education.  Readers who are actually interested in education will get a comprehensive understanding of what is done there for this is the report's purpose and it is written and reviewed by professionals.  Warden (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless it is the only primary school (or one of the only) in the country to teach French, and the report doesn't state that to be the case, it doesn't really establish notability.
 * As for use as a general reference, to be honest, I'm still not sure what use most of the information is unless you actually quote the report verbatim. Otherwise, given there are no other independent sources about the school, we'll just end up with an indiscriminate list of bullet points as there is no other information to tie it together.  Pit-yacker (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be odd if a British School in 2012 DIDN'T use IWBs.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Run of the mill; routine report from government agency is not "significant coverage." Neutralitytalk 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. England and Wales have over 16,000 maintained Primary schools. Every one of them has an Ofsted report. That makes the reports Run of the mill.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Shipley, West Yorkshire per standard procedure.  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) 06:36, 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) 06:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does it say you can't have a redirect? Yes, there's no policy saying you must create a redirect (just common practice), but neither is there any policy saying you must not create a redirect. Policy is, incidentally, usually created when common practice is formalised in writing, so if we were to never follow precedent like you suggest, it's most likely policy as we know it would never get formed on anything. The de facto policy on redirects is generally that we can have one if consensus is that we should have one, and this is quite sensible redirect to have. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I support your  view Chris. 'Redirect' is one of the official closures, and indeed all policies and/or guidelines recommend seeking  any  solution that  leaves deletion as a last  resort. This does not  mean that  Wikipdia is inclusionist  per se, but  caution is the best  policy where deletion  is uncertain to be absolutely  necessary, and where AfD !votes (either way) are not founded on policy, guidelines, or precedent. AfD is not  the venue for debating  policy, but  it  can certainly determine a precedent, as it  has done over the years on  a vast  scale for redirecting school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The array of !votes here -- delete, redirect, and keep -- would seem to support the view that assessing consensus in a discussion at the notability guideline, and enshrining it in the guideline, may perhaps be a helpful course.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have a notability guideline and this topic passes it by virtue of the detailed sources written by independent professionals. The contrary opinions are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT supported by appeals to essays which are just more personal opinions and so there is no policy-based argument to delete.  The point about redirection/merger is just shuffling the material around and so is not important in the question of deletion. Warden (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Warden. My point is merely that the views expressed on this page range widely, and your view (which I respect) is not one that all editors agree with, and that the divergence of views expressed as to what our policy is vis-a-vis articles such as this one suggests that greater clarity at the notability guideline might be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to Warden. The arguments to delete are actually based on facts provided by people who have knowledge of the subject, and have explained why the source does not establish notability. If it was just a case of citing policy we wouldn't need to have discussions. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. This topic fails GNG. An Ofsted report might establish notability IF it commented on something notable. For instance if it mentioned that the school had no interactive whiteboards (IWB) and mentioned that the reason for this was that the school governing body had made a strategic decision NOT to spend money in this area in order to direct funds into another more deserving area, then that might, just might, establish notability for the school. But an Ofsted report which establishes that most of the teaching is good, with the remainder being satisfactory (or vice-versa) does nothing to establish notability. That would just establish that the school is among the middle 80% of schools on the Ofsted bell curve. It's the content of the report that counts, not the report itself per se. I'm not convinced that all primaries ARE non-notable. Nor am I convinced that all UK schools are notable by virtue of the presence of an Ofsted report. If we want to say that all secondaries are notable then fine, let's enshrine that in a guideline that is not subject to challenge every time a user creates an article about their school. And let's also include some guidelines on merge and redirect of primaries. But don't expect volunteer editors with limited time to contribute to embark on a protracted bureaucratic process that will eventually end up where we are today every time they want to do a little cleanup. Let's give them the tools, authority and support to go and make this paedia a better experience for readers. Fmph (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have attended many notability discussions about a variety of topics and so have the breadth of experience to say that this topic passes the requirements of the WP:GNG with ease. Many topics struggle to find sources of such good quality as an Ofsted report.  For example, see Whole stuffed camel which was a recent snow keep.  That has sources but they are not as substantial or as convincing as an Ofsted report.  To delete a solid respectable school on the grounds that it is mundane and boring compared to such traveller's tales is a travesty.  We are here to cover all knowledge not just the bizarre. Warden (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have attended many notability discussions about a variety of topics and so have the breadth of experience to say that this topic fails the requirements of the WP:GNG with ease. Fmph (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing this in your contribution history. Apart from the recent spate of English school AFDs, I have to go back to Articles for deletion/Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland to find another type of topic.  In that case you nominated the topic on the grounds of notability and nobody agreed with you.  It seemed that you had a different agenda ... Warden (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect as the standard way of handling it. That we do this, is a guideline in practice, re-established every once in a while by someone who wants to test it. Not everything labeled as a a guideline or even policy  is actually effective, if we don't follow it (need I mention NPA), and many things that aren't specified as such are actually  de facto guidelines that we always follow. I don't quite understand Fmph's complaint here, nobody need go through any bureaucratic process to achieve a reasonable result--no secondary school article ever need or should be taken to AfD, for the result is 100% predictable, and all primary school articles can be redirected boldly, unless someone actually wants to make a case for an exceptional one. It's questioning this process that will cause endless bureaucracy, because then every school article of any sort will lead to an AfD discussion. The more things we get out of AfD the better, so we can spend the effort discussing the things that really do need discussing 8in order to form or clareify a consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether perhaps it may be slightly less than accurate to say that the result is 100% predictable. Many editors have asserted what the well-settled consensus is, but even this week we have had a variety of opinions expressed at AfDs similar to this one, and different closes.  Given the range of opinions expressed just this week as to similar AfDs (ranging from keep to delete to redirect to merge), and the range of closes just this week of similar AfDs (from delete to redirect to merge), and given that even this week editors have disagreed as to what our "well-settled" policy is, I think we might benefit from writing into our notability guideline precisely what our consensus is.  That would help matters, and if it is well-settled it should be something we can do without a problem -- though I've heard from some editors that they fear that our lack of consensus on it would lead to us not being able to add it to our other, similar notability criteria that are reflected in subject-specific guidelines..--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems clear that there are varying opinions and preferences about schools so that general consensus cannot be found for this topic. What's not clear is why schools are such a battleground when they are generally quite respectable.  My impression is that it's because few editors actually like schools as a topic.  Everyone thinks they are an expert because they all went to school themselves.  But the topic does not attract enthusiastic fans in the way of topics such as cabbages and kings, let alone  Doctor Who and football.  My impression is that the schools project is now run largely by haters who are constantly at loggerheads with advocates and old boys of particular schools.  There seem to be few editors who take in an interest in education as a general field and so such topics are comparatively neglected. Warden (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are of course entitled to an opinion. But it's just that - an opinion. I certainly don't recognise your characterisation of editors in general being anti-schools. I have personally spent quite a bit of time and effort bring a bunch of local secondary schools up to scratch. At the same time I have merge and redirected numerous local primaries. that's cos I abide by consensus which is generally to either delete or redirect most primaries. What I've noticed is many editors with particular attachments to individual schools to the extent that they display severe ownership characteristics, and object strongly to their little favourites (despite such articles having virtually nil content of note) being merged and redirected. These may or may not be old boys and girls. Who knows. And I know I'm not the only one. And if we didnt have to waste time trying to implement consensus against the recalcitrant few, we might actually be in danger to improving the paedia. Fmph (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge to Shipley, West Yorkshire per usual practice. An Ofsted report does not establish notability because every primary school in England has one (by law) and consensus is not in favour of the idea that all primary schools are notable. I cannot find better sources, hence this school is not notable. Hut 8.5 20:48, 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.