Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blue School, Wells
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Blue School, Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
non-notable school ConDemTalk 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Prod removed with no explanation or improvement. ConDemTalk 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- While Wikipedia:Schools is still a work in progress, it incorporates guidelines for notability similar to the other established criteria... and this school makes no attempt to establish any degree of notability. ◄Zahakiel► 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Better sourcing has been provided since the beginning of the AfD process that cites more than just the age. ◄Zahakiel► 02:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Founded in 1641 seems like an assertion of notability to me. It needs expanding and referencing, not deleting. --Bduke 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Bduke above Bbagot 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The article has since had information and sources added. This should remove the deletion concerns. As far as age equaling notability, at least in America those structures that have stood the test of time are given a special place of prominence. During our Bicentennial celebration, houses that could be shown to have been around before a certain time period were allowed to be marked and tours could be given. Bbagot 04:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the links make it notable. The press release doesn't count, because it's not independent. There are thousands of buidings from around that time in the UK - a little cottage I lived in dated from that time, and that was in no way notable! (Not that that counts as evidence fot my argument, I know.) There's not claim that the school is still in the old building, anyway. ConDemTalk
- Update: The article has since had information and sources added. This should remove the deletion concerns. As far as age equaling notability, at least in America those structures that have stood the test of time are given a special place of prominence. During our Bicentennial celebration, houses that could be shown to have been around before a certain time period were allowed to be marked and tours could be given. Bbagot 04:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. The assertion made above that just because something is old it is automatically notable is just silly: imagine applying the same reasoning to people - my grandmother would immediately get her own Wikipedia entry. Just possibly the "oldest" of a category may be notable, but to claim notability for being the "umpteen-th oldest item" is very peculiar indeed. WMMartin 11:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Old Schools are notable. They are not your grandmother. You are missing the point. --Bduke 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Quite the contrary: my grandmother is old, but she is not notable because she is not adequately documented by independent sources. Here on Wikipedia notability is not subjective. This is a well-established principle. Simply because something is old, or big, or small, or young, or you happen to like it does not make it notable. It bears repeating in virtually every debate on schools articles: a topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable to support an article about it. Every other article in Wikipedia has to stick to these principles, but in every school debate we get variants of the line "all schools are notable", or "I think this is notable", or "I like it". This is fine, and if anyone wants to set up a directory of all schools on the planet they're very welcome to do so, but the criteria we have here are different: we have a technical definition of notability that is independent of your preferences, or mine, or any other editor's. But there is a small, vocal, number of editors who think that their preferences should over-ride this fundamental principle, simply because "they like it". One of the great tragedies of Wikipedia is that the "pro school" people think that there's a bunch of people out there who are "anti school": I'm certainly not, as my record shows, and I'm highly confident that neither are most people. All I want, and I suspect all that most people want, is for the same rules on notability to be applied to the subjects of all articles. We can indulge in technical quibbles about whether school sports results in local newspapers count as adequate references if you like, but the bottom line is that what I want is fairness, and not to have the particular preferences of one group imposed on the project as a whole. You say that I am missing the point, but it is you who is missing the point: Wikipedia is a shared, collective endeavour in which we all agree to be bound by common standards. When you try to impose your views by claiming that all X are per se notable it is you, not I, who is breaking the social contract that unites Wikipedia editors, because you are not accepting the general principle of notability that guides and binds us, but imposing your own. To say "I like this, so it must be so" is not the mark of someone who wants to be part of a larger commonweal, but the mark of the unco-operative, the petulant or the dictatorial. WMMartin 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not denying that this article needs sources, but I still say that a School with a history of over 350 years is asserting notability. That history needs verifying. The guideline you quote "is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable" is all very well, but in my opinion it is confusing notability with verifiability. Something can have lots of sources which are reliable, in the sense of reporting something correctly, but they can be sources about something that is trivial. I am not saying "I like this". I know nothing about the School. Nor am I saying "All Schools are notable". I am saying that very old Schools are at least asserting notability. People should be adding reliable sources and developing this article. A very old School will have had many notable alumni and will have played a significant role in its community. --Bduke 23:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A very old school need not have had any notbale alumni. If there are notbale alumni, then this is very probably a notable school. But this doesn't follow on from the fact that it's old. Something can very easily be old and not notable. Basically, a mention of notable alumni would be an assertion of notability. It doesn't mention any. Simply being old is not enough. There are no other assertions of notability. Therefore, it doesn't assert notability. ConDemTalk 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not denying that this article needs sources, but I still say that a School with a history of over 350 years is asserting notability. That history needs verifying. The guideline you quote "is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable" is all very well, but in my opinion it is confusing notability with verifiability. Something can have lots of sources which are reliable, in the sense of reporting something correctly, but they can be sources about something that is trivial. I am not saying "I like this". I know nothing about the School. Nor am I saying "All Schools are notable". I am saying that very old Schools are at least asserting notability. People should be adding reliable sources and developing this article. A very old School will have had many notable alumni and will have played a significant role in its community. --Bduke 23:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Quite the contrary: my grandmother is old, but she is not notable because she is not adequately documented by independent sources. Here on Wikipedia notability is not subjective. This is a well-established principle. Simply because something is old, or big, or small, or young, or you happen to like it does not make it notable. It bears repeating in virtually every debate on schools articles: a topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable to support an article about it. Every other article in Wikipedia has to stick to these principles, but in every school debate we get variants of the line "all schools are notable", or "I think this is notable", or "I like it". This is fine, and if anyone wants to set up a directory of all schools on the planet they're very welcome to do so, but the criteria we have here are different: we have a technical definition of notability that is independent of your preferences, or mine, or any other editor's. But there is a small, vocal, number of editors who think that their preferences should over-ride this fundamental principle, simply because "they like it". One of the great tragedies of Wikipedia is that the "pro school" people think that there's a bunch of people out there who are "anti school": I'm certainly not, as my record shows, and I'm highly confident that neither are most people. All I want, and I suspect all that most people want, is for the same rules on notability to be applied to the subjects of all articles. We can indulge in technical quibbles about whether school sports results in local newspapers count as adequate references if you like, but the bottom line is that what I want is fairness, and not to have the particular preferences of one group imposed on the project as a whole. You say that I am missing the point, but it is you who is missing the point: Wikipedia is a shared, collective endeavour in which we all agree to be bound by common standards. When you try to impose your views by claiming that all X are per se notable it is you, not I, who is breaking the social contract that unites Wikipedia editors, because you are not accepting the general principle of notability that guides and binds us, but imposing your own. To say "I like this, so it must be so" is not the mark of someone who wants to be part of a larger commonweal, but the mark of the unco-operative, the petulant or the dictatorial. WMMartin 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Based upon what? I agree with WMMartin that age by itself is not a sufficient element of notability. I'd definitely alter my opinion if I saw anything else (in the article, or about-to-be-included in the article) that said why this particular school is notable. ◄Zahakiel► 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No proof of notability in either the article or in any of the 'keep' !votes above, besides 'Well, it's old'. Would someone explain to me why they think that that is valid? Veinor (talk to me) 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete given that the school is 350 years old, there should by now have been amply time for anything that might have made it notable--but it hasn't. DGG 05:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. That this school is 366+ years old and the largest in Somerset confers notability. (jarbarf) 00:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We are not operating on any kind of WP:DEADLINE, and any school aged over 350 years is historically important. Yamaguchi先生 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't Wikipedia:There is no deadline suggest that we can afford "to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." ConDemTalk 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and it actually works against the "keep" vote that the citing editor gave... no time limit means we wait until something is clearly notable before including it. The press release used to establish the school's status as "largest" is not an acceptable third-party source according to WP:Notability: ""Independence" excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias." If third-party coverage for the school cannot be found, it shouldn't be included, despite its age. ◄Zahakiel► 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not operating under a deadline to make each and every article perfect, this one already demonstrates notability and contains non-trivial third party sources, such as the one from SusTrans. Silensor 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The press release is indeed form a 3rd party source. The school is not run by the Somerset County Council. It is a voluntary controlled school run by the CofE - it receives state funding but I don't think that makes the press release non-independant.--Golden Wattle talk 00:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, satisfies the bastardized WP:SCHOOLS guidelines and cites multiple non-trivial sources, satisfying our core policies. Silensor 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The press release about it being the largest is not from the School but from the County Council as far a I can see. I think that makes it third party. I found it on a blog from an alumni also, but that is not a reliable source. --Bduke 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Silensor, et al. --Myles Long 15:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an institution which has survived more than 350 years is notable--Golden Wattle talk 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar schools, ie Voluntary controlled schools dating from the seventeenth century or earlier are Marlwood School from 1606, King Charles I School from 1636, William Parker Sports College from 1619, Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Ashbourne from 1585. Also Earls Colne Grammar School from 1520 - a hundred years earlier and now closed. There is nothing less notable about the Blue School. A free school from that era is interesting - I hope somebody will write more.--Golden Wattle talk 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Silensor et al. AntiVan 05:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Largest school in Somerset, long history, high academic standards independently assessed. TerriersFan 00:59, 25 February 2007 (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.