Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reigate St Mary's School

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. There is not consensus about whether sources exist to establish the notability of this school independently of Reigate Grammar School. Given the length of discussion and its general tenor of the conversation I am closing as no consensus. No prejudice to a renomination in the future, preferably after at least six months time. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reigate St Mary's School

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Reigate St Mary's School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school, owned by Reigate Grammar School so could easily be incorporated into that article if necessary, as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Fob.schools (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The school has enough coverage in reliable sources to comply with WP:N. Also, as a school with its own staff and its own separate campus and character, it would significantly complicate the Reigate Grammar School page, which has a different address, headmaster, origin, date of foundation, age range, accreditation, and so on. All such details would need to be stated twice in the single infobox. Article begun today will continue to expand and will soon be longer than the RGS page. Moonraker (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tacyarg, "WP:MILL" has a note at the top to say it is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Notability is defined at WP:N, and all that requires is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and have editorial integrity, it does not rule out local media or inspection reports. The purpose of the policy is not to make “run of the mill” subjects non-notable, it’s just to make sure that content can be verified from reliable sources. (By the way, I don’t agree that a choir school with exceptional standards is “run of the mill”, but it’s a moot point.) Moonraker (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not for redirection. "Redirect to Reigate, where the school is already mentioned." What, one short sentence? Well, it's a mention of sorts, I suppose. Especially bearing in mind that the article is developing, I don't see any basis for clamping it under the guise of MILL. Let's not be precipitate. (Declaration of non-conflict of interest: I have no connection with the school other than having to drive past the near-suicidal bottleneck on the curve in the lane outside it when I lived in the UK.) SCHolar44🇦🇺 💬
It’s very difficult to call a trade standards body ‘independent’ or ‘objective’. This is objectively a feeder school for RGS with a choir. Nothing notable in the slightest about it. If the choir was notable references to it would abound in the real WP:RS, the national dailies and the major online outlets. Quoting WP:MILL is entirely aPpropriate sait describes the article perfectly, essay or no. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ‘’’is’’’ policy though. This is a non-notable primary. Fob.schools (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It’s very difficult to call a trade standards body ‘independent’ or ‘objective’" -- sorry, I don't really understand that. Moving on to "Nothing notable in the slightest about it", however -- that sounds a bit absolute. I sense, perhaps, a certain fervour in your comments. I hope this doesn't descend into the edit-warring that you got into over Reigate Grammar School.
Is your reasoning that any school that's a feeder into another should not normally be sufficiently notable to qualify for an article in Wikipedia? I still believe it would be a good idea to leave some time for the article to grow. SCHolar44🇦🇺 💬
What edit-warring am I supposed to have been engaged in on RGS? As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES any feeder school is by default assumed to be non-notable. It’s up to contributors to prove otherwise. The ISI is a trade body for Independent schools that conducts inspections. Despite its name, it’s anything but independent. It’s paid for (barely) by the schools themselves, and needs to keep its funding secure to keep going. A real Conflict of Interest. Fob.schools (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Fob.schools#Reigate Grammar School: "I have closed the report you placed at WP:RFPP. I have to advise you that the IP(s) were editing in good faith, as they backed up their evidence for why the school should be a "Public school" and not an "Independent school" with a source (even if you don't agree with it or think the source is insufficient). You reverted more than four times, so broke the three revert rule, but you have stopped. Be advised that had I seen the report this morning and acted it on it, you would have been blocked for edit warring."
I mentioned this because it appeared to me (forgive me please if I'm wrong) that you may still have a fervid opinion on this subject area. I do commend, as mentioned, leaving some time for the article to be further developed. SCHolar44🇦🇺 💬
What fervid opinion might that be? Do elucidate? 15:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Fob.schools, the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) is not a “trade body”, it is a schools inspectorate working under licence from the Department for Education, monitored by Ofsted. The British government is satisfied with its reliability, and it is independent of the subject, with editorial integrity, as required by WP:N. You say “This is objectively a feeder school for RGS with a choir.” Yes, it is. “If the choir was notable references to it would abound in the real WP:RS, the national dailies and the major online outlets.“ (If you look at WP:RS, you will not find anything remotely like your definition there.) The article is not about a choir. As it happens, there are references to the school in national newspapers, but they are quite trivial, exactly as with almost all other schools. WP:MILL can be quoted, but it is just opinion, and it contradicts WP:N, which is policy. “Nothing notable in the slightest about it.” You seem to be using “notable” to mean nationally important. We can agree the school is not that, but it complies with WP:N. Your logic would remove almost every school from Wikipedia, now that secondary schools are not to be treated as inherently notable. Moonraker (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To remove every school from WP would require an amazing amount of effort and dedication, certainly not something I have in my locker, so lets not overdramatise the issue. The requirment of WP:N is to have 'significant coverage' from 'reliable', 'secondary' sources. This article is, in the main, self-sourced. The local news coverage is by and large created from school press releases, which is why they are not considered reliable. With regard to ISI, you say potato, I say potato. It IS a trade body. We go back to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Primary schools are generally not notable. To get over that hurdle, the article needs to cross a significant threshold, and this doesn't. It is not notable. I can find similar coverage for just about every primary school in England. To turn your argument on it's head, you seem to want every school to have it's own article. Fob.schools (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fob.schools, you are entitled to your opinion, but all the sources comply with the requirement in WP:N to be independent of the subject, with editorial integrity. Most schools are not covered in any reliable sources focussing on choral education, as this one is, or indeed in any sources at the national level focussing on anything, but it’s a moot point, as the policy is not about importance. No one has suggested that every school should have its own article, but if we got to the point where all schools could comply with WP:N then there would be no reason why not. So far as I know, you are not firing at any other similar schools, please see List of choir schools and say how many you think should be deleted. But please do notify me of any new Afds. Moonraker (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial integrity? On blogs and local newspapers? gimme a break. Fob.schools (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No blogs. Local papers have editors. Moonraker (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not the relevant policy, that refers to WP:N and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I see your point about school directories, but they have editorial integrity and are independent of the schools, much the same information appears year after year, and any factual errors are soon pointed out and corrected. There is no claim of uniqueness, only a statement of fact which can hardly be disputed, but I have added a second source for it. Moonraker (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a policy, it’s a summary of what happens at AfD and is therefore a good indication of how the community implements policy. So it is entirely relevant. School directories do not by default have editorial integrity. They need to be shown to have integrity. See WP:RS. Fob.schools (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fob.schools, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not exactly a summary of what happens at AfD and it does not help during one. What is at issue is simply whether the article complies with WP:N. You say “See WP:RS“, and that is okay, it is very relevant to how many of the sources are RS. You may be relying on the definition here. There is nothing in that about school directories, but it says it matters who the writers and publishers are. I see nothing wrong with the publishers. If you could show that the whole of each entry in a particular book is written on behalf of the schools, and not edited for the publisher, then you could persuade us all that it was not a RS. In this case, that would still leave dozens of sources unchallenged. School directories are relied on in many WP school articles, and I do not think they should be driven out of WP, but I would agree that an article sourced only from school directories could be struggling with WP:N. Moonraker (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is. It is a summary of the common outcomes at WP:AFD in relation to schools. It’s part of an explanatory article for the deletion policy that covers most common AfD scenarios. The fact that these directories are used in other school articles is irrelevant. If you want an analysis of each and every ref, I’ll do it, just for you, but to start you off, the editorial policy of the first ref - muddy stilletos - is that they will accept freebies to review stuff - it’s a blog which exists For the purpose of getting free stuff for the author. Did she get a free term/year for her child for writing the rather long review of the school, currently referenced 6 times in the article? You say that the school is notable for its choir(s?) yet most of the references relating to the choirs are quite old. Maybe it was notable some years ago? If it still is I would expect a lot of relatively recent refs saying so. If they exist, they don’t seem to be used in the article. I could go on. 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
On muddystilettos, you paint a dark picture, but we can read about it on thegoodwebguide.co.uk here. The operator, Hero Brown, is an experienced journalist who has been a national magazine editor, and the article says muddystilettos is “the most influential lifestyle site in the UK for women living outside London. Her website covers everything from eating out, beauty, fashion and travel in nineteen counties and is compiled by a team of national journalists; each editor covering the county in which she lives.” That adds some weight under the WP:RS definition. Moonraker (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:DAILYMAIL is undoubtedly influential, but that doesn’t make it a reliable source. In fact the opposite.Fob.schools (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not that muddystilettos is influential, but that it has experienced writers and a professional editor. The Daily Mail is a red herring. Moonraker (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. Even with experienced editors and writers (i.e. the Daily Fail) a publication is not automatically deemed to be a reliable source. When they have an editorial policy that says "Of course we'll be independent if you give us freebies" they are probably not reliable narrators on the subjects of their writings. Fob.schools (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a commercial operation, just as printed magazines are. Anyone interested in what it actually says about accepting paid advertising and free tickets for writing reviews can read it here. Moonraker (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fob.schools, thank you for “Maybe it was notable some years ago?” You have come round to the idea that there are enough reliable sources for the school, and there are a lot. Your idea of notability fading away as time passes is new to me and is not mentioned anywhere in WP:N. The sources include some highly respectable books, such as The English Chorister: A History, and The Music Yearbook, plus The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, TES, The Guardian, Organists' Review, and so on. You have questioned the editorial integrity of the Surrey Mirror, Surrey Live, and other local papers and web sites, but I have not seen anyone supporting you on that. Moonraker (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being a commercial operation does not imply it is a reliable source.Fob.schools (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, and it doesn’t imply it isn’t. Moonraker (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I am persuaded by Moonraker, though the rationale for deletion also gives me pause. I would suggest weak keep or redirect. --Micky (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It passes WP:GNG in its own right though in all other circumstance we would delete a prep school. We have to consider each case individually. We can dismiss MERGE and REDIRECT. What makes it different is its interesting history, and changes of age intake over the year. Predominently, we are talking about a choir school that has tiptoed between state, church and independent sectors as the legal framework for schools changed in the 20th century. If it had always acted as a junior department to a feepaying independant school then it would be MERGE as per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG or delete. This is a keep, but I would want to add a few Ofsted or equivalent reports and cut out any promotional material. ClemRutter (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
just to clarify that from its inception this school has been a private fee-paying school, and has not been organised under the auspices of any church, nor has it ever been part of the state sector. Fob.schools (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ClemRutter, the section headed "Inspection" is about the latest ISI report. Ofsted doesn’t inspect prep schools, but it monitors the work of the ISI, which works under a Department for Education license. You may think the "School day" section reads like promotional material? It is cited from the school web site and a non-school source and is only there as useful information. As it happens, I have no connection with the school. Moonraker (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker. Exactly. I am thinking ahead, so if this comes up again in another article we can cite the comments here and save ourselves a lot of time. It is easy to become very binary on the issues of selection (Kent) and state/private edeucation, and then to miss the essential items that all articles need. We have a nicely written article here, ISI is well used. My quibble comes in the use of Idependent school yearbook which is a prestigeous trade-rag in the section ==Curriculum and character==. It is a RS for names and stats but not so for POVs- The phrase ' choral excellence' rings alarm bells, and bragging about computer provision reads like promotion though the information is valid. Fob.schools I hear what you say and like the objections you have raised and will probably use them myself elsewhere but the WP:GNG has been passed- and the article is stronger than thousands of other ones, here and abroad. ClemRutter (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That distinction between names and stats and POVs is fair enough, ClemRutter. I have edited 'tradition of choral excellence' to 'tradition of choral singing', leaving that citation for now. Moonraker (talk)|
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reigate_St_Mary%27s_School&oldid=965051846"