Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Court Moor School

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Virtual dead heat. Woohookitty 06:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Court Moor School

I'm far from being against school articles but this one does not even try to establish notability. Has been given two months to come up with something but is still just a couple of lines. violet/riga (t) 11:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that it was rubbish, though two months is really much too short for any kind of organic growth--from experience I'd say that six months is a reasonable minimum. I removed the vanity stuff about the new headmistress and plonked in very brief summaries of what OFSTED and DFES have to say about the school. And the BBC league table for good measure. It's a very good, though not exceptionally good, secondary school. The article is now a perfectly good stub. Keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete no evidence of any notablity whatsoever. The article is a horrible attempt to cover over that deficiency by including subtrivial information on its OFSTED report. Dunc|☺ 12:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Dunc. Perfectly unencyclopaedic and non-notable stub. Proto t c 12:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, etc., etc... -- DS1953 13:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - If it was the usual one-line stub, I'ld toss-it, but it's a wee bit more, and just barely worth saving. --rob 13:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, school and article appear just notable and encyclopedic enough to keep per Schools for Deletion. Also appears to get a fair number of Google hits.Gateman1997 14:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's best to avoid linking to personal pages in a way that might make people think they are official or neutral. Kappa 16:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    • If they can't bother to read the title "User" on the page they deserve to be confused. Plus I'd say my stance is pretty neutral anyway.Gateman1997 16:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Incidentally who is "we" on that page, as in "We urge people to vote on the following...?" Kappa 17:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Me and people like me who resist the "all schools are notable" cabal. Or at least that was my reasoning when I wrote it. Not all schools are notable. This one however appears to be notable enough for an entry. Gateman1997 17:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dunc and Proto. --Lomedae 15:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, helps to build a comprehensive encyclopedia of schools. Kappa 16:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is not really even a stub now any more so why erase this kind of information Yuckfoo 16:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dunc --TimPope 16:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony Sidaway. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:21, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
• Delete. Hasn't improved over time, so won't improve ever. Pilatus 18:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dunc. Gamaliel 18:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All schools are notable and two months is nothing. Osomec 19:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Secondary Schools are notable, give it some time Guerberj 19:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Inherently notable. Thanks to Tony Sidaway for making it more than a small stub. Unfocused 20:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools Soltak | Talk 22:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for the usual reasons. Don't forget: all schools are notable (does that make me part of the "cabal"?)--Nicodemus75 23:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Every cat school is a masterpiece

It is not the biggest or smallest of its kind, it isn't renowned for its architecture or laid-out grounds, it hasn't got a long history, it hasn't produced notable alumni, it doesn't offer special programs, according to the OFSTED report cited here it is near the top of the second quartile and not particularly good or awful, why exctly is it here? Pilatus 08:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Hint: this is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. We write verifiable, neutral, factual articles about idea, people, institutions and events that people may want to read about. If you, personally, don't like the idea that somebody might read about this school (as I have), you don't have to think about it. Just blank it from your mind and eventually the horrible memory will fade. You don't need to have the article deleted; leave it for those of us who may want to read it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a directory, that is a collection of data. This distinction is actually important. Elsewhere (incidentally at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep we have a definition: "'An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge.' -- '... Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value.'" The article in question presents a few facts, nothing more, nothing to put the data into context, and we should have the article deleted for those of us that want to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Pilatus 12:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with this. The article describes the school as one of two of its kind in Fleet, it relates the school's educational performance to the local area and to the country, and the standards of teaching to the inspections that are carried out by OFSTED. The article is also categorized as a Hampshire school. It is thus simply incorrect to state that the article provides "nothing to put the data into context". --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It is nothing but a directory entry. It's "one of two of its kind in Fleet", so you say, now in which regard is it different from the other? Why would anyone prefer to go to this school instead of the other? The entry doesn't provide for an "encyclopaedic", i.e. well-rounded education. Collis P. Huntington High School participated in the fight against segregation, but how is anyone who has read this entry better off? Pilatus 10:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The question "in which regard is it different from the other?" is easily answered. it's a completely different school. You seem to be arguing that an encyclopedia should server a pedagogic function--you ask how reading this article make someone better off (I presume this is intended to ask how does the reader learn an "improving" lesson). Well that isn't the function of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia provides useful, verifiable information on a subject. This article does that. It doesn't set out to answer imponderable questions such as was Huntington High somehow better than Court Moor, or will the reader be "better off" for possessing knowledge--the reader who chooses to read the article can answer those questions himself if they're the kind of question that interest him. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • An encyclopedia provides knowledge, not data, as in the quotation above. The entry reads as if it were taken from a directory of schools and thus is not up to scratch. In fact, it is mostly data from the OFSTED website. Pilatus 10:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • A person reading the article by the time he gets to the bottom of the page will be aware that the academic and vocational performance of the school with respect to the local area and to the nation is rather good. It is true that is could also be described as data, but it is undeniably knowledge. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:BEEFSTEW point H puts it down more succincly than I ever could. The OFSTED data is nothing distinct, nothing that sets it apart from other schools. Also see point I. It's disappointing if nothing can be said about a school apart from its OFSTED/DFES evaluation. Pilatus 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually that is one of the problems I have with BEEFSTEW. It's requirements are arbitrary and use words like "distinct" that tend to be interpreted in a non-intuitive manner by some who adhere to it. Schools are self-evidently distinct--they reside in different locations, they have different staff and students, they teach different ages, they teach different subjects and they provide different extra-curricular activities. Their academic performance is distinct and they have different connections to their respective communities. While you may be disappointed by a school article because it doesn't tell an improving moral lesson, or OFSTED figures bore you, I don't see this as a reason to delete an article. It's obvious to me, but not to you, that the OFSTED figures distinguish this school from the average. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • We are discussing articles on schools, not schools themselves. (You are referring to "moral lessons", why is that?) Pilatus 19:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The article makes the distinctions of the school clear, in my opinion. If it didn't then we wouldn't be able to say whether the school was distinct from any other (indeed we wouldn't even be able to discuss its name, location, school system, curriculum or OFSTED figures because those in themselves are distinctive). I use the term "moral lessons" because it's the only way I can interpret your earlier use of the phrase "but how is anyone who has read this entry better off?" in the context of a school in which clearly a person who reads the article has absorbed some information about the school. It seemd to me that, since knowing that the school was considerably better than the run of English schools didn't seem to qualify as being "better off", you must be using some other meaning of the term, and so I plumped for the moral dimension. I did mention this conundrum at the time. Feel free to be more specific. I feel better off for knowing that the school is in Fleet, a town I know reasonably well, and is considered a good school. Since the information could be useful to me and was acquired as no cost to myself, I consider it excellent value. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If all schools are notable then The Chase (school) must be acceptable. violet/riga (t) 11:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite. Pilatus 11:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep agree with Nicodemus75 all schools whatever the size should be on here--Machtzu 23:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to see here, move along. CDThieme 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus. Nandesuka 12:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable secondary school. Quale 17:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. Hamster Sandwich 21:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep, borderline notability. 24 at 19:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The cat made me do it. Alf ^melmac 08:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another non-notable school. Jonathunder 00:51, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
• Delete. And the other Fleet school is Calthorpe park. I went to that school and it is absolutely NOT notable. Oh yes, hang on, I forgot it does have a swmming pool next to it that was incorporated into the old sports hall. Smoking was prohibited but the sports hall allowed students at Calthoprpe Park to stay hidden while smoking. Could Court Moor be notable as having a lower rate of lung cancer in it's alumni? I'm sure this could be verified if we document all the deaths in fleet over the last 25 years. I suggest one distinct page for each alumnus with a discussion of whether they were non smokers etc. What a great collection pages that would make to go along with all the school pages. More is NOT better. David D. (Talk) 08:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• More is better. It's what makes an encyclopedia encyclopedicKeep. --Centauri 12:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There appears to at least be a rough concensus that all secondary schools are worthy of including here. Silensor 21:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Fleet page previously mentioned the area schools in this manner [1]:

The town has a number of schools including Heatherside, All Saints, Velmead, Calthorpe Park and Court Moor School.

Rather than linking all these schools to their own page such as Court Moor School. It is much simpler to link to the OFSTED data set. The Fleet page could more easily, and informatively, address the schools in this manner [2]:

The town has a number of schools including Heatherside, All Saints, Velmead, Calthorpe Park School and Court Moor School.

Obviously if one of these schools has something exceptional to expand the 'knowledge' in wikipedia beyond the 'information' in the OFSTED database then it warrants it's own page. There is nothing in the current Court Moor School page that can be regarded as knowledge over information. If information is the priority for wikipedia then bus timetables etc. should be acceptable. Even stock prices that change on a daily basis.

Why is it better to link to schools that do not add to the information already in the OFSTED databases? This has the advantage of being vandal free and up to date. Note that the main reason would be for the information to be current. One might argue that the links will be vandalised [3]. This is true but it is still preferable to having the actual information on a wiki page. If I vandalise a link it is clear since the link will not work. If I change a data point on the page from 15% to 25% it is not obviously vandalism and might even be considered a legitimate update. Once the Court Moor School page has more than OFSTED and DFES data on it's page then it will be worth keeping. For now I do not see the problem of having it associated only with the Fleet page. i.e. merge or redirect to that page. David D. (Talk) 23:48, 7 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.