Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor

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 The Windsor Boys' School. Guerillero | My Talk 01:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor

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

School through age 13. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards. Zero refs, and tagged for that since August. A merge was suggested in August, but no action has been taken. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge/redirect if necessary. Fails WP:GNG. DfE deem it a "middle-deemed secondary", but they don't decide our classifications. 13 is too young for our accepted standards. Fmph (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Windsor Boys' School or to the sponsoring authority, per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree as this school is one of many feeder schools of Windsor Boys' School and is not linked to it, either geographically nor in terms of management or governance. • Dofedave

Keep. The fact that a couple of awards are mentioned suggests that there could be something more to the notability of this school. It might be possible for the article to be expanded further by someone with more information. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles because "there could be something more to the notability of this school", or because "It might be possible for the article to be expanded further by someone with more information", absent such RS-supported independent substantial information. And here, there would have to bring something special for us to act against the general consensus that absent extraordinary circumstances such schools should not have a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards go towards notability, i.e., "extraordinary circumstances". There is no "consensus", yet, that this article should be deleted. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are not supported by RS mention -- they are just bare, unreferenced assertions. They also do not appear to be especially notable, even if they do exist, if you look at the articles that underlie them. That is not the sort of think that would push us to ignore the typical convention of not having stand-alone articles for schools of this ilk.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a RS for those awards would be as difficult as contacting the article creator and asking. I googled just then, but found the wrong school... It can't be that hard. Again, you're asserting that there is "convention" to remove such articles. There is only a convention where the schools aren't notable. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to the convention, I'll simply let other editors weigh in and confirm what I've said.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to parent No third party sources, no proof of importance of awards. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although this may be a minority viewpoint I believe that the deletionists are being foolhardy in their blind opposition to schools articles. Every school office I have been to has dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall. This clearly meets GNG as they are multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore based on NRVE the only decision should be keep. Some schools are lucky enough to have these sources on google news but many older and in fact more historically notable ones do not and that is a shame. Microfilm is just as important. Based on this experience it should be clear that all schools are notable. Also at the very least this school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article, not deleted outright. This preserves the edit history for when sources are found. It should also be noted that this is part of a mass nomination and that should be frowned upon by the community as it shows there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination. I don't think even a PROD was tried first here. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then go back to all those school, look at the articles on the wall, write down newspaper, date and subject and add the sources to the article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: not all schools are notable Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This point has been responded to above... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable Church of England school on the Edge of Windsor Great Park (and opposite Elton John's house!) and holds many awards. Dofedave (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dofedave (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable school with a long history dating back to 1725. The article needs a lot of tidying up and is currently in breach of copy violation but copyvio is not a reason for deletion. Dahliarose (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is known to be a copyvio, that should be reported ASAP, so it can be addressed. What is it a copyvio of--or are you taking the phrase "extract of" to mean that it is a copy-paste ... which I guess would be a normal reading ... without having seen the primary text? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know the copy violation and I will sort it out - I have been updating this page as I have close knowledge of the school and its history, and produced the history book on it.--Dofedave (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've already sorted it out. Thanks for doing that. I was referring to an earlier version of the article here which appears to have reproduced a big chunk of text verbatim from a book. Dahliarose (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to the "extract of" sentence referred to the sentence that appeared at the end of the History section of the article. It stated: "(extract from 'A Sound and Happy School' by Margaret Gilson, ISBN: 978-0-9536912-1-0)". I see Dofedave, while making other edits which I imagine were meant to seek to ameliorate the copyvio, has removed the statement, but it can be seen here for those who are trying to follow this.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 13 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.