Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavendish School (Camden)

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 redirect to London Borough of Camden#Education. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this school isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Cavendish School (Camden)

Cavendish School (Camden) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Zero refs, for which it has been tagged for 2 years, though it does have a primary source EL. Appears to be non-notable, per what I understand is our standard approach with primary schools. Tagged for notability over 2 years ago. It purported claim to fame -- the attendance of a notable person -- is not IMHO sufficient to confer notability upon it. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge / redirect to London Borough of Camden#Education as per standard policies on non notable primary schools - no hits on news, only self-referential and standard Ofsted links on search. The fact that Lily Allen went there is irrelevant - see WP:NOTINHERITED. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The school is documented in detail in sources such as this. Founded over a hundred years ago, highly respectable, covered in detail in multiple sources, celebrity alumni. What more does one need? Just some development in accordance with our editing policy... Warden (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment But as stated above, the current standard procedure is that such a school is mentioned, but in the main article for the area, rather than an article in its own right. Note that under London Borough of Camden#Education, only Brookfield School has an article, and somebody could AfD that for similar reasons if they so wished. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, there is no specially agreed standard for schools - see WP:SCH which is marked as failed. So, we must consider each cases on its merits with respect to standard guidelines such as WP:GNG. And this topic passes those easily. Warden (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment The source cited by Warden is clearly promotional and not independent. Not "voting" either way just yet. At the moment there isn't it enough to justify a keep. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• 'delete for the present. It's a non-notable independent primary. WP:Runofthemill. The source quoted above can not seriously be considered either 'significant', nor 'independent'. As is customary in this sort of market, the publisher collects their information not by sending independent inspectors into the school to survey and write the entry, but by asking the school to write it. At the bottom of this page they are asking schools to "promote your school or company". I've had a good look at the sources without success. If someone else can find some significant coverage by independent sources, I may be willing to change my mind. Redirect to Camden#Education if necessary, but I can't see the point myself. Fmph (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• That source is adequate to establish notability because it has an independent publisher and operates in a commercial marketplace, in which people will pay for this information. If you are concerned with the probity of independent inspection then, of course, we have that too - see here for a detailed inspection report. The school is thus clearly notable and the balancing of these various sources is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The ISI is about as independent as the TUC. It's a trade assocation. Fmph (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• No. It is an inspectorate which is explicitly authorised by the Education Act and whose performance is reviewed annually by Ofsted, e.g. here. They are certainly a reliable source for our purpose, having a specific concern for accuracy and professional standards. Warden (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indpendent Schools in England are inspected by Oftsted unless they are members of the ISC in which case they are subject to ISI inspection. So what we have is a report that the school HAS to have. It doesn't make it notable. Still not "voting", just clarifying Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Schools only have to have inspections if they fulfil certain criteria of size, status, &c. In any case, the essence of notability is that there should be sources and the reason that these sources are created is immaterial unless it affects their independence. Movies and books get reviewed as a matter of course by professional reviewers and such reviews are considered satisfactory for those topics. There is no reason in policy to set a higher standard for schools. Schools are more worthy of our attention than this week's movies such as Alvin and the Chipmunks 3 because they are less ephemeral and more respectable. Warden (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The essence of notability is not that there should be sources. I think you need to study WP:GNG again. Fmph (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The text of WP:GNG is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.". See - it's all about the sources. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to have to do this again, but statement "Schools only have to have inspections if they fulfil certain criteria of size" is demonstrably false. The smallest school in England [1] has an inspection report [2]. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's a maintained school. For independent schools, the threshold for registration is five pupils: "An independent school is defined as any school that provides full time education for five or more pupils of compulsory school age...". So there are criteria there of both size and age. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• So if it has less than five pupils it is not defined as a school. Thanks for proving my point! Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, it just means that it doesn't have to register. Schools with few pupils may still be considered schools as your example of a school with 3 pupils demonstrates. Warden (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify: if it's a maintained school, it gets inspected regardless of size. If it's an independent school with 5 or more pupils it gets inspected. If it's an independent institution and has less than five pupils it is not defined as a school. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify, the school which is our topic has about 200 pupils. It was founded in 1875 and so has over a hundred years of history under a variety of regulatory regimes. Under the current one, it is registered and inspected by independent, professional inspectors whose detailed reports of ~12 pages provide ample material upon which to base an article per WP:WHYN. The topic is therefore notable as defined by the WP:GNG and that's that. Warden (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet WP:GNG in current state as sources required or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. The "official site" fails WP:VERIFY as "Schools can amend their information at any time". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per convention and per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, per Warden's comments above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Merge / redirect per previous comment by User:Ritchie333. Stubbleboy 19:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2012 (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.