Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belhaven Hill 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belhaven Hill School

Non-notable school, doesn't meet criteria set at WP:SCHOOL. Some P. Erson 00:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, here we go again... my vote is delete. The article does not establish any notability for this school, a very small boarding school for elementary and middle school children. A grand total of 175 total and 71 unique Google hits for "Belhaven Hill School", so it doesn't seem as if many people know or care about it. -- Kicking222 00:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Counting Google Web hits is not research. One has to actually read the pages that Google finds. Reading the pages found in this case turns up this lengthy independent report on the school and the followup report listed here. Please don't substitute counting hits for actual research. Uncle G 01:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yet another school that has no notability. Everything else in wikipedia is subject to notability guidelines - schools should be too. Viridae^Talk 00:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If you follow your own rationale and apply the proposed notability guidelines given in the nomination, you will find that this school is notable. It makes no sense to assert that schools should be subject to notability criteria, and then not to apply the notability criteria that are actually right in front of one. Uncle G 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per above. SynergeticMaggot 00:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable Robotforaday 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• When it comes to schools discussions, many editors appear to be stuck in a groove, repeating the same arguments again and again. A lot of these arguments are wrong. "All X schools are notable."/"All X schools are not notable." are both wrong. Notability is not a blanket. "This school seems notable/non-notable to me." is wrong. Notability is not a subjective judgement made by Wikipedia editors. "This school is unimportant."/"This school is important to its pupils." are wrong. Notability is neither fame nor importance.

  The new WP:SCHOOL proposal embodies the primary notability criterion, namely that the subject be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the subject or its owners/creators. This is the notability criterion that first appeared in limited form in WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC at least two years ago and that has been generalized to published works in all forms. In its general form it appeared in WP:CORP, and the effect has been to shift the focus of discussion of company articles. Two years ago editors would be giving their personal opinions of how "famous" or "well-known" or "important" a company is, or centring the discussion around the author of the article. Now, as a direct consequence of WP:CORP, editors far more often go looking for books, news articles, magazine feature articles, reports, and the like (i.e. sources), and are basing their rationales upon the extents and natures of those sources. Finding, reading, and evaluating sources is the proper study of encyclopaedists. It seems like a good idea for the schools debate to shift away from the "stuck record" arguments towards looking at sources, too. If WP:CORP did it for companies, WP:SCHOOL should do it for schools.

  Therefore I am applying the proposed WP:SCHOOL criteria, in particular the primary criterion, to this school. Looking for non-trivial published works, I find, in amongst all of the mere directory entries like this one and this one (which is content-free!), and a few works whose source is the school itself, a lengthy published report by an inspectorate independent of the school, and a followup report, both cited above. The first is definitely not a mere directory entry, and it appears likely from its length that the second is not, either. The primary criterion is thus satisfied. Keep.

  Notice that the above rationale does not rely upon fame, importance, significance, personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor, or blanket statements in either direction; but relies solely upon the primary notability criterion and looking at sources and what they contain. Uncle G 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Just so you are aware, the reports you cited are from government inspections which take place from time to time for all Scottish schools. If they are deemed satisfactory evidence of the school's notability, then that means that all Scottish schools are de facto notable.Robotforaday 03:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The first paragraph of the inspection says that it was part of a "sample" of primary schools, not that it was part of a global inspection of every primary school. Uncle G 09:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • If this was a random sample, then it confers no special status on the school i.e. these schools are no more or less notable than any other Scottish schools. If it was not random, then the selection criteria are presumably published and become an input to the notability evaluation. Dlyons493 Talk 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Sampling in these inspections is not random, but is rather systematic so that over a time period each and every school is inspected, but in any given year a reasonable spread (primarily geographical) is chosen. See Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. If you look around that site you will find reports for pretty much every school. Robotforaday 20:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — I'm not sure that an inspection report from the government makes a school any more notable, unless the criteria for ordering such reports are the same as WP's notability criteria (and I doubt this). JChap2007 02:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a directory entry. The only two reputable sources I could find were the two inspection reports, and I don't believe that qualifies the school for the first criteria from WP:SCHOOL. Besides, you can probably find an inspection report on any school in Great Britain, as the inspection is probably required to make then. Hence, the would mean all schools should stay, which is not in the spirt of WP:SCHOOL. Moreover, I don't see this particular school meet any of the other criteria. -- Koffieyahoo 02:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the school concerned exist for all schools in the U.K., then having articles on all schools in the U.K. is very much in the spirit of WP:SCHOOL. The spirit of WP:SCHOOL is having enough source information to construct more than a entry that would be a directory entry in a directory of schools. i.e. the spirit of WP:SCHOOL is not to construct a directory of schools. Read the introductory paragraphs of WP:SCHOOL and User:Uncle G/On notability. It is clear that there is enough source material here to construct an article that is more than a directory entry in a directory of schools. Contrast the actual directory entries in directories of schools that I linked to above. Those are what we don't want, and those are what we have enough source material at hand to avoid. Uncle G 09:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. --Musaabdulrashid 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable organization. Having been inspected does not make it notable. Opabinia regalis 03:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Government inspection reports do not confer notability. Also fails WP:CORP as a boarding school. Catchpole 06:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CORP has the same primary criterion as WP:SCHOOL. It passes WP:SCHOOL, as described above, therefore it passes WP:CORP as well. Government inspection reports (or, at least, these government inspection reports — please read them) are non-trivial published works, the same as any other. Discounting sources simply because they are produced by government agencies is wrongheaded. Sources should be discounted either because they are unreliable (i.e. they come from the school itself) or because they are trivial (i.e. they constitute no more than simple directory entries). These sources are neither. (I gave examples of trivial sources that are discounted, for contrast.) Uncle G 09:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a directory of schools, nor is it a directory of government inspection reports on schools. Catchpole 13:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That's irrelevant. No-one is writing articles about the reports, or even attempting to make a directory of reports. This is an article about a school, not about a report. Please use reasoning that is relevant. Uncle G 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G, this article meets the primary criteria established by proposed WP:SCHOOL guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You have noticed that if Uncle G's sources were in the spirit of the guideline that every school in Schotland should have it's own article as a concequence? -- Koffieyahoo 09:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • They are in the spirit of the guideline, as pointed out above. Please take the opportunity that is being handed to you to get off the "stuck record" arguments about "all X are notable/non-notable" that have bogged editors down for so long and concentrate upon finding, citing, and evaluating sources, which is what we are supposed to be doing as encyclopaedists. If you have objections to source material for an encyclopaedia article that are two detailed reports on the subject created and published by someone wholly independent of the subject, please state what those objections to the source material at hand are. Uncle G 09:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't recall that I've made in a notable/non-notable school argument for weeks. However, WP:SCHOOLS is a notability guideline in whatever way you look at it, just like WP:CORP, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, ... Hence, if you feel that inspection reports are valid in establishing notability, then we should throw WP:SCHOOLS out of the window now, forbid AfD'ing schools, and speedily close all currently running AfDs on schools, as you will be able to find an inspection report on every school currently in wikipedia and every school that will be added in the future. -- Koffieyahoo 01:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Also a question to Uncle G: have you actually read the Inspection reports? You simply can't base an encyclopedic article on them that goes beyond stub level: they simply state that the parents and inspection were satisified with the school performance a few years back. Moreover, the school was chosen at random as stated at the beginning of this report, which could imply that we have now to include a random sample of British schools based on erradic behavious of Her Majesty's school inspectors. I thought an encyclopedia wasn't supposed to be a random collection of information? -- Koffieyahoo 01:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable school. feydey 09:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Per the notability criteria linked to above, this is a notable school. You appear to be using some other notability criteria. Please point to them and explain how this school fails to satisfy them. Without that, that rationale is insufficient. Uncle G 09:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no indication in your lengthy essay about verifying the criteria, most of it is discussion about the WP:SCHOOL criteria's origins, and the links given do not give any notability verifications (see User:Dlyons493 observation). I agree with Bunchofgrapes and I think as my rationale might not be perfect, without a reply to User:Dlyons493 also Your rationale is insufficient. Best, feydey 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G and Yamaguchi先生. --HResearcher 09:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and Uncle G. This school is notable. Silensor 09:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The school is irrelevant: the article establishes nothing except that one of the students has access to Wikipedia. The article cites no sources, it provides us with no history, no discussion of the school. The article is more about the headmaster than about the school, and yet that topic is a distraction. The potential article on this subject leads only to a possibility for putting this on the Requested Articles list. There are hundreds of thousands of potential articles, but we have to assess the one that has been written, and it fails our guidelines in this case. Geogre 11:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I like the fact that we are striving to get more than "notable" involved, but applying criticisms of the subject of the article is limited. They will tell us only what could conceivably be written. Almost every day we have speedy deletions of sentence fragment "articles" under G1, even if they managed to pretend to be about something significant. Nor is this "clean up is no rationale for deletion" because this is not a question of cleaning up but rather a complete rewrite. Consider the speedy deletion criterion of A7: "makes no claim for notability." Again, it isn't "isn't notable" but "makes no claim": an article on a band that says "Talking Heads is a band that broke up in the '80's and they were really cool" would be an A7 candidate despite the fact that, of course, Talking Heads was a seminal group. This particular article doesn't give us as reviewers much to work with. Now, we, as reviewers, can go off and do research on our own, but that has already put the onus on us to write the article. Once we're doing the research and organizing the information, we are, essentially, writing a new article. Geogre 11:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Per Uncle G's research, references to which are now on the article. GBYork 12:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable school, nothing to show its greater importance or to have it stand out amoungst the sea of schools. Not all school are notable and this one surely isnt. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to followup the documentation seems to be very general a report on a school can be part of a standard reporting system where all schools of that type are reported on yearly, barely signifying some sort of non-trivial outside work. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I would actually say thats pretty trivial. Verfiable but does nothing for notability. Viridae^Talk 12:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • "Trivial" is "not more than a simple directory entry". I cited two trivial published works above, for comparison with the reports, which are most decidedly not directory entries. Please look at them. Uncle G 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether something "stands out amongst the sea of schools" is a subjective judgement by a Wikipedia editor. Notability is not subjective. If you are using objective notability criteria, please point to those criteria and explain how this school does not satisfy them. Uncle G 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Notability is of course subjective, all you are doing is using your own judgement of what notability criteria to follow. Catchpole 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That's completely fallacious. Notability is not subjective. That one chooses to employ notability criteria does not make those criteria themselves, or their application, subjective. Uncle G 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Notability is most definitely not subjective. WilyD 01:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - meets WP:V, and all other appropriate guidelines and policies - I can find no criterion for deletion, nor have any been suggested (give that WP:SCHOOL is not a policy or a guideline, but just idle musings). WilyD 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree with other users about lack of notability. John Smith's 14:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in current state. I see two references have recently been added; it alarms me to see things tagged as "references" that do not support the facts stated in the article. Other than supposing its existence and location, the article lists two basic facts: the current student population and headmaster. The population is at odds with that listed in [1] and the headmaster's name does not appear to be listed in either source. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and notable school. Carioca 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds are you asserting that the school is notable? I am prepared to change my vote if somebody can present such evidence. However, I cannot find any such evidence myself, and I have looked. Robotforaday 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Pointless entry on a non-notable school in a town that does not have a Wiki entry, headed by a headmaster who does not have a Wiki entry. Contains information of no general interest in non-encyclopedic form. - Corporal Tunnel 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What makes you think that Dunbar does not have an article? And how would that be a rationale for deleting an article in any case? Uncle G 17:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep as per all schools. Piccadilly 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as Uncle G explained better than I could, the existence and status of this school has been confirmed by indenpendent reliable sources, and an article can be built of off those sources.-- danntm ^T _C 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Question So let me get this straight- it is being argued that all schools that are inspected (that is, every school in the UK), is notable because you can cite the inspection documents? I am not a crusader against schools entrys- if historical details/ unique method/ a particularly notable place in the community show that the school is more of note than just any school, then fine, let it be in wikipedia. But a report, whilst verifying the existance of the school, in no way verifies the notability of the school. Robotforaday 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no guidelines or policies about notability for schools, nor are there any general guidelines or policies on notability as a criterion for deletion. As far as I can tell, every article that's been deleted on grounds of notability failed either WP:V or WP:SPAM, if not both. There is not now, nor has there ever been any need for deletion on grounds of notability, and in many fields (math, science, engineering) it would be quickly recognised as inappropriate. It's only the confusion between notability and spam/vanity/verifiability that leads to these kinds of arguments. WilyD 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I know of articles that are deleted by consensus in other fields (e.g. football (soccer), where I'm a member of the wikiproject) purely on the grounds that the subject does not meet a pre-agreed and consistently applied standard of notability. I know it's a completely different field, but those deletes took place because of non-notability, not V or SPAM. Robotforaday 21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I can't speak to Soccer, but WP:MUSIC, for example, invokes notability all the time for no real reason - bands that fail notability also fail spam or verifiability. WilyD 21:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge One government mention of the school does not confirm notability. Simply confirmation that a school exists is not enough for it to be listed. Guidlines for separate school articles do exist WP:Schools. The key word in part one is multiple non-trivial sources. This school does not meet the guidlines that warrant existing as a separate school. A merge into the respective demographic area, or if they exist in Scotland, school district article, is the best alternative to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will381796 (talk • contribs)
• keep please this school is notable and verifiable too erasing makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet again, someone asserts that this article is notable, but gives no basis for saying so. Could you please give your reasoning? If somebody could give adequate grounds, I'd be prepared to change my vote. Robotforaday 22:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Apart from the government report relied on by Uncle G, I find not a single source that mentions this school independently from others. All mentions are directory-style lists of groups of Scottisch or East Lothian schools. I find one minor, trivial mention in an East Lothian Courier article[2]. Apparently, the school is not considered notable enough to cover in the media or other reliable sources, and cannot be deemed verifiable through web sources. Based upon these findings, I recommend delete. --Thunderhead 22:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think Uncle G has put forward a sensible suggestion so it should be kept if there are verifiable sources and merged to the community it is in if not. Capitalistroadster 23:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep once again notability is not policy, verifiability is. Clean it up and add more references... problem solved.  ALKIVAR™ 00:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Although WP:SCHOOL is still in proposal phases as a guideline, this article meets the criteria as has been noted by Uncle G. Suggest withdrawal of this nomination for deletion. Bahn Mi 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

comment Is verifiability the only criteria that determines whether something gets it own article? I can easily verify that I am alive. Does that make me eligible to have an article written on myself? No, it doesn't. I was under the impression that notability is a fairly important criteria when evaluating the existance of an article. Sure, a couple of sources do show that this school exists. It is verifiable. Does that make it important enough to warrant its own article? No. WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, although still a proposal, should be used to determine whether it should have its own article, and the sources that Uncle G cites I would consider to be trivial sources of Scottish schools. If every school must undergo an inspection and is listed on these reports, then following Uncle G's interpretation of the guidelines, all Scottish school's should have an article. What if the Scottish government did not have these documents posted online? Also, I am not familiar with the organization of Scottish schools, but are they run independently or does the Scottish government control them? It seems to me that a government agency that is responsible for regulation of Scottish Schools means that this agency is not completely independent of the article's subject. Are there any other non-trivial sources regarding this school? This thinking is not logical. It is obvious that this debate is still being discussed and consensus has not been met. Many still fail to see how this article meets the criteria. The AfD nomination should remain active.will381796 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You verifying that you're alive violates WP:OR. Articles must get past policies like WP:V and WP:OR to avoid deletion. Guidelines are a seperate issue, but we are free to keep an article that fails every guideline. The reasonable guidelines for this article are WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM. When people talk about spam, they're really saying the article violates WP:V or WP:SPAM - I'm not sure I've ever seen an article deleted on notability grounds that would've passed WP:V and WP:SPAM WilyD 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Verification of your living status is easily done using a birth certificate. That isn't OR and it still doesn't mean you deserve and article on WP. Viridae^Talk 02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Birth certificates aren't publicly available, so it would, in fact, be OR. WilyD 03:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in many jurisdictions, birth certificates are public records that can be accessed by anyone for free, or for a fee. Similar to any other vital record (ie Criminal record); but we digress from the focus of the debate. will381796 04:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, meets content policies; individual schools are notable as important institutions in the communities they serve. This school is no exception. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That kind of thinking can lead you down a slippery slope. I know it is a stretch, but some people could begin to think: "hey, every person on the face of the earth influences other people and their society in some important way." Sure, education is very important in a modern society. That doesn't make every school important enough for an individual article. A library is important to a community, providing a means for indviduals to go out and gain access to otherwise unavailable information. But that hardly means that every library branch in my city deserves its own article. will381796 03:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Few libraries have the significance that most schools have to their community, not to say that I would want to delete a decent article on a library. Obviously in every case it is a subjective call. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As much as the school-cruft gives me a royal headache, the long running consensus has been that schools are notable. Uncle G's argument on the application of WP:SCHOOL is valid. I will say that I personally disagree with the spirit of WP:School because I think it is too leninent in it's criteria for the notability of school. But alas, that is the status quo consenus until we work to change it. 205.157.110.11 08:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Its only the status quo consensus as long as long as you allow it to be one and as recent school AfDs have shown, it clearly isnt a consensus at all. Viridae^Talk 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. What has struck me as odd is that there's obviously a double standard here (in AFD). People have to be notable, but schools have to be verifiable. I personally agree that WP:V is the policy to adhere to, but that doesn't seem to count for people. --Thunderhead 11:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is certainly true, but keep in mind that, while most schools are sufficiently verifiable most people aren't. It would certainly be nice to see less deletion of people that actually are verifiable though. Personally, I don't have the time to work on something along these lines, but if someone had suggestions as to how to ensure that verifiable people are kept I'd certainly support that. JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominator is mistaken as Uncle G and others have demonstrated. The article meets WP:SCHOOL perfectly well. RFerreira 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So every school in the UK meets WP:School, as reports can be found online for them all? Wow, stubfest coming up. Robotforaday 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Feel free to be bold and merge tiny stubs into articles on the parent community (see Wikipedia:Places of local interest for some other thoughts). That is an editorial action that doesn't require an AfD, and it's often a lot more efficient at cleaning up tiny unexpandable stubs than an AfD is. JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Which was the alternative that I suggested up above. Being verifiable does not automatically make you notable. They do not go hand-in hand. will381796 03:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiable. See also comments above. JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on notability grounds. Mallanox 20:55, 21 August 2006 (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.