Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bulmershe School (2nd nomination)

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bulmershe School (2nd nomination)

The Bulmershe School (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence. Puerto De La Cruz 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It has no demonstrated notability. It is mentioned inthe article for the town, and that mention could be expanded. Edison 20:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As a High School it is certainly more notable that the Primary Schools also up for deletion. The stats from the BBC web site show its existance outside the material put out by the School itself. The article does however need improvement and I hope this Afd attracts it. --Bduke 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the BBC stats don't prove much more than that the school exists and has students who took the GCSE. Neither of those claims are evidence of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I suggest High Schools are notable in the way that villages are. They contain much the same number of people. We do not delete articles on villages. Also biographies want to state which High School the subject went to and readers want to find out about the school. The best way to ensure this is not to delete articles on High Schools but to improve them. This argument does not apply to Primary Schools. These are rarely mentioned in biographical articles and they have less influence on people. --Bduke 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. I've certainly seen articles on villages (or any other settlements) deleted when the only information is that "Dingsdorf is a village in the German state of Oberuntergammergau". All an article like that proves is that the place exists, which isn't enough for notability. Yes, if the village has more sources on it than that, it should probably get kept. To apply this analogy to this school, I don't see much more than the bare bones of existence in the sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - per "Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff." Agree that the article needs expanding, but I don't think that stub articles should be deleted simply because they're stubs. robwingfield ^(talk) 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Which "Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff."? If I knew of these it would help me vote. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - yes it needs to improve - but not be deleted. Ian Cairns 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, almost all English schools meet WP:SCHOOL because of their OFSTED reports. No evidence has been presented to indicate that this school is unlikely to do so. JYolkowski // talk 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear noteworthy. No nontrivial reliable secondary sources. OFSTED reports are trivial sources, because they exist for all schools as a mandatory function of the government, much like inspection reports for restaurants. In fact, it would be more noteworthy if an English school lacked an OFSTED report. Shimeru 05:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep The awards are a possible claim of notability. JoshuaZ 00:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". Arbusto 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - on that basis, should we delete all articles for which there is a comprehensive alternative web site? I don't think many would agree with you. robwingfield ^(talk) 08:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - My understanding is that WP:V does not require multiple sourcing; it only seems to require one reliable source. Thus, the OFSTED reports seem to establish verifiability. On the other hand, notability requires coverage in multiple non-trivial sources or something similar. Winning awards is usually sufficient for notablity, so I think the awards the school has won are sufficient to establish notability. -Kubigula (ave) 05:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the article meets all content policies. It's not really clear from the nomination why the nominator feels this article should be deleted; the solution to articles that fail to meet WP:SCHOOL is a merger, not deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, 4) this is is a high school and we have near perfect precedent for retention of existing high schools with any non-trivial content, a standard this article meets and exceeds, and 5) the school's receipt of the School Improvement award indicated for three consecutive years is evidence that the article meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria. Alansohn 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per numerous reasons given above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. — RJH (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Last nomination was months or years ago. Reconsideration is not inappropriate. Shimeru 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above commenters, article appears to meet our guidelines for inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 22:56, 14 November 2006

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.