Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guildford Grove 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 redirect to Guildford#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?} 00:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guildford Grove School

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

Appears to be a non-notable primary school with minimal refs outside of generic and statutory Ofsted reports. Suggest Delete although willing to accept Merge and Redirect to Guildford#Education. Fmph (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a notable school as it is documented in detail in independent, reliable sources and so satisfies our notability guideline. Warden (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- the consensus is that Primary schools do not normally need their articles. However, I beleive the best solution is to merge them to the place where they are, in this case Park Barn Estate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article. Per convention. Open to redirect or merge of any RS-supported text.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG as no non routine sources or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason for notability stated or found. Little coverage beyond usual routine sources. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) to Guildford#Education 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) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School governing body? A bunch of 12 or so local concerned citizens that meet twice per term and discuss child protection policies? Are you sure that's what you meant? Even more non-notable than the school.Fmph (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge or redirect as we usually do. On the one hand, there is no justification for a separate article--I do not accept my friend the Col.'s insistence that these sources are discriminating and substantial; on the other there is no justification for not having it included somewhere. No argument against merging has been given, and the nom. is willing to do it that way. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only encyclopaedic matter that is reffed in the article is the fact that there is a unit in the school which supports deaf children. That info has already been merged. There is nothing else encyclopaedic in the current article.. Fmph (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why the wise and extremely experienced DGG is recommending merge/redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not what i picked up from his post. I understood him to be saying that ALL referenced material from the article needed to be merged into the target, which would be a nonsense. Fmph (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I have cited are more substantial and discriminating than the sources we use for many other topics such as academic journals. These inspections are quite a big deal and there is currently a significant scandal being reported - some cases of schools trying to manipulate the outcome. These inspections are high-stakes testing for these institutions and are matter of significant public concern and interest. As sources they are far better than the PR fluff which passes for journalism in much of the media. The featured article today is Brad Pitt. Are we here to just report on celebrity gossip about Brangelina's children? Warden (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, why don't you indent like everyone else? It really does make a mess of the talk page. Anyhow, you seem to be in a very small minority who consider that Ofsted reports generally confer some form of notability. They are run of the mill stuff. And if everyone is cheating at them, surely their reliability is suspect? Fmph (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is indented one level from the comment to which it is responding - the !vote of DGG. Please see Hierarchical threads. As for the cheating, this is to be expected in any form of testing or inspection. In a rigorous system, it is exposed and remediated and that is what's happening now. Warden (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content of your reply does not suggest you were replying to DGG. I have to say that it may be exposed in the incident you are referring to, but its happening in many more (most?) schools by default, in one form or another. They only detect the smallest number. They dont want to detect any more, because doing so would discredit the system even more. Fmph (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG queried whether the "sources are discriminating and substantial" and I responded using the same words. I was addressing his concern specifically because of the high regard given to his opinions here. Warden (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read it now and accept entirely that you werre. My sincerest apologies. Fmph (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Guildford#Education. --Ifnord (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.