Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York Boarding Schools Group


 * 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   delete. The fact that there is next to no 3rd party coverage hasn't been addressed. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

York Boarding Schools Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability. "York Boarding Schools Group" excluding Wikipedia gets a whopping 10 google hits. B (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing to indicate notability per our guidelines, next to no 3rd party coverage. Most sources provided have been put in question too. There seems to be a larger issue with the editor that created this article - but here is not the place for it. Rehevkor ✉  20:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep if you've got GHits, great, then lets work on improving this list of mostly apparently notable schools. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on what are you concluding that the schools themselves are "apparently notable"? Only three of them are referenced. --B (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems notable to me - its been around for years and everyone locally knows it and the schools in it. Looking at the editors above - do any of them have local knowledge? And don't come back with wiki jargon or reliance on policies - if you don't know the area - why stick your nose in - wiki is all the worse for it! Is wiki about providing accurate information or getting your view of the world on by means of finagling via policies? Get Keith [Keith_D] in on this discussion - he knows what he's talking about re all things Yorkshire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.163.33 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I no longer have any interest in this. I tried to put up one page in 2009 and received abuse and hate emails from wiki users. So I left it a year. I tried again to put up a page in good faith in 2010, followed all the policies, and this time received hate emails, abuse and false allegations. Charming. So I'll leave you all to it and have another look in 2011. I have to say the behaviours of certain editors only re-enforces the outside world opinion of wikipedia as a closed shop run by warring editors who simply seek to uphold their own fiefdoms and points of view. I will not be responding to any more hate messages which I have no doubt will be posted ... carpe diem! (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You received hate emails? That is pretty serious accusation. Rehevkor ✉  12:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing "hate emails" means "being asked to stop spamming links to this school" . --B (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The guy's said he's not interested and you're still attacking?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.163.33 (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Attacking? What? Rehevkor ✉  14:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice to recreation if someone finds evidence of notability. Business like this makes me think the article is a bad faith contribution. Normally I would try harder to find evidence of notability in this case, but I'm afraid I have better things to do than clean up after someone with an apparent single-purpose agenda and absolutely no intention of of reaching consensus. 88.110.163.33 (assuming you're not a sock-puppet), the only way that Wikipedia can provide accurate information is to properly cite the information in reliable independent sources. We cannot rely on assertions of "I've got local knowledge, honest", certainly not from editors with no reliable history of contributions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If I am right in thinking that this is an association of schools, it seems to me that it should be notable. I would be happier if the article were expanded to say a little more of what the group did.  I do not believe it to be a school-proprietor as some of those listed are clearly disparate from each other.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the group's own webpage is horribly vague as to what it actually is. If it's a group that actually owns and governs these seventeen schools, then, yes, I agree it makes sense to have an article. If, however, it's simply an association that these schools are affiliated to, I'm not so sure. The group's association with seventeen schools would certainly count as an argument in its favour, but IMO that's not enough to overcome the zero coverage in Ghits or Gnews. I would usually investigate this further, and I will change my !vote if someone else choose to do this, but I'm not prepared to put my time into protecting articles posted and promoted by people is such an aggressive manner. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it were conceded that all or most of these schools were notable (which it is not), notability is not inherited. A person might be notable, but an organization to which he belongs (eg, a community organization) might be non-notable.  A notable company might be wholly or partially owned by a non-notable holding company.  Thomas Road Baptist Church is an obviously notable church, but its local association, the Lynchburg Baptist Association, is not notable. --B (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * delete Umbrella group in the UK means some kind of affiliation - the singe nn reference says its to promote the schools. So itsa trade organisation that noone had written about. That means its NN so it goes. Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per Spartaz no indication of significant coverage so fails WP:ORG. Codf1977 (talk) 08:32, 18 July 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.