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. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Putteridge High School

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

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

Sources in article are to the school website and to a site that does not mention the school. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth from IS RS demonstrating N. This is a nice normal school, not an encyclopedic topic.   // Timothy :: talk  23:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  23:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  23:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue:We have been here before and the arguments have not changed much, the article cites a primary source (allowed but not recommended) and that of an umbrella organisation which I consider too close to use except for notability arguments, but if you look at the first reference it refers to a successful Ofsted report which alone is the reliable source you need to find. The second reference, you claim does not mention the school- but when I do a Ctrl-F on the landing page I get nothing but when I look at the page it is mentioned in the centre of the page in an embedded pdf/gif. All you need to do is click on the menu tab our schools and there is a sub page. I would not quote either of these myself- but it is simply wrong to say they are not there. Looking closer at the subpage, Ofsted is mentioned again and there are details of a 22 million pound rebuild and that cannot happen with planning appraisal documents being publically available! There are sources a plenty. Look at the infobox, and there are two links to Ofsted Reports, and the GIAS site.

Staying on this AfD page, there is a helpful {{AFD help}}box.

I quote

When to use the deletion process?

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Articles are not expected to be perfect. However, Wikipedia content, policies and qualities are to be expected in all articles. They are:

• Neutral point of view – articles are expected to be written neutrally, representing views fairly and without bias. If an article is beyond help, it should be deleted, but try fixing the POV first.
• Verifiability – articles should be based only on information published in reliable sources, and articles should cite those sources whenever possible.
• No original research – articles should not present new theories, ideas, data, or analysis.
• What Wikipedia is not – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is not a paper encyclopedia. It is not a dictionary, a soapbox, a crystal ball, a repository of links, or an indiscriminate collection of information.

Articles that don't conform to these policies can sometimes be improved to the point where they do conform. Articles that the community feels cannot improve, or are unlikely to improve, are often deleted.

When to not use deletion process?

• Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.
• Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.
• Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.

That, and the fact that 'nice normal schools' are valid topics in WP- there is no rule that they need to be exceptional, and SIGCOV does not mean a sig depth of coverage- merely that the article mentions them (ie they are not in a list, are not just there as captions or space fillers), this AfD should be rejected.ClemRutter (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply 1) This is not about clean up, it is about notability. 2) Database entries for mandated government reports for every state funded school receives are not SIGCOV and do not demonstrate notability. 3) Government sources about state funded schools are not independent sources and do not demonstrate notability.

Your statement, "SIGCOV does not mean a sig depth of coverage- merely that the article mentions them" shows you do not understand what SIGCOV means.   // Timothy :: talk  02:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Come on, you are reading more into the definition than it actual says. I quote so other readers can follow:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Two examples are given, the example of trivial coverage is a fleeting mention of the target in a newspaper biography of someone else. Not to what we are discussing here- which is an in depth appraisal.

I have suggested elsewhere that you read a few Ofsted reports so you are familiar with what they are, how they change over time and the nature of the 8 to 11 pages of information that they contain. We have been here before. Government sources about state funded schools is language suitable for authoritarian states (I believe one of your interests) it certainly does not apply to the complexity of UK government with its checks and balances, and layers of responsibilities and independences. ClemRutter (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - I have expanded the article, with it now having 10 sources, 4 of which are not from the school, its sponsore of the DfE. Bleaney (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Sources added do not demonstrate notability, they are local news stories which do not discuss the school directly or in depth as required by SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  11:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Ofsted reports are independent and reliable and contain significant prose coverage of their subjects - far from "database entries". I don't know where the nominator is getting the idea from that they don't count because they are government mandated. The fact that they are government mandated simply leads to all schools subject to such reports being notable. And the idea that being nice and normal means non-notability would only be relevant if this was the Guinness Book of Records rather than an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Available sources sufficient to establish notability, as with any other British secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Question just for clarification, because the article on Ofsted isn't clear about it, doesn't every school (or is it every government-supported school?) in the UK receive one of these reports every 3 years? If so, why is the existence of one evidence for notability, (And, inversely, if a report is usable as evidence for notability , if an article on a UK school is deleted, and there is no Ofsted report cited, isn't that evidence for a failure to check adequately, because there if most circumstances must be one.)

Secondly, isn't such a report a primary source, which needs to be interpreted by a secondary RS? It's a government document to be sure, but government documents, like other primary sources, are not necessarily self-explanatory. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• An attempt at clarification, basically every UK secondary school has sufficient material on it to fulfill WP evidence of notability. The structure of the UK government and funding systems ensure that. No school is a government school- they never have been, but over the years different ways of funding schools have evolved. Public, private, independent, grant maintained independent, council schools and with the involvement of the church voluntary aided, (that is Catholic) voluntary controlled (Anglican). There was a great bale out in 1944- so when I went to Primary School in 1955, a third of the schools running costs were paid for by the Cof E, and two thirds by Stockport Borough Council from the local rates and rate support grant. For secondary education my sister went to a Council secondary modern (100% funded from the rates) and I went to a direct grammar school that was founded in 1487. It had been through many financial changes- but for me, in exchange for direct per capita grant from HMG through Stockport, I got a free place. Other boys paid fees and other boys got grants from other local authorities such as Cheshire CC or Derbyshire. To make sense of this barrel of worms- the staff of each school is employed by the governors or trustees of the school. Each school will have articles of governance like a private firm- some will be not-for-profit charities.

To its ire, HMG cannot instruct a school, only advise them. The HMG through the DfE can propose a national curriculum but only advise compliance. Ofsted, ISI and two or three smaller organisations are authorised by DfE to run inspections and collect statistics. The independence of Ofsted is total, but it is subject to the law of the land. A school where my wife worked, got an appalling Ofsted report (many reasons but many were political). They took Ofsted to Court in a judicial review and defeated Ofsted- the chief inspector resigned and since then other schools have successed in doing the same. Schools have a legal obligation to publish Ofsted reports though they have of course not written them- this leads to confusion with readers who are used to other forms of judgement. Ofsted reports are picked up by local media. For us WP editors we only need to look in our own infobox, to see the URN with gives proof of the existence of the school, this links to what we know as GIAS. This is a .GOV.UK page that gives us stats, links to Ofsted reports and links to former and succeeding schools on the site- or with linked legal responsibility. In addition we have the Ofsted page which lists all existing inspections for that name. Bearing in mind we only have to prove that the site has generated independent descriptive material once- we are over the top. I agree that no UK school should be nominated for deletion without the URN having been located, and then GIAS and Ofsted being consulted. Quite simply no-one in the UK builds a 22m pound building with out some form of scrutiny and publicity being available, or maintains an existing one.

You question whether this is a regular tri-annual report or tick list. No, it happens unannounced, but the frequency of a Section 5 will be dependent on the previous report. These are supplemented by Section 8 inspections, which can be called to monitor a recommendation, collect statistics on a group of schools. If the inspectors have grave concerns they can trigger a full Section 5. What makes Ofsted reports so valuable to us is every remark is legally checked before publication. They are massive documents written in prescribed sections but these can lead anywhere. So not only does their existence prove WP:N but means they pass the higher standands needed to be used as a reference.

Now as you have asked the question, I am strengthened in my belief that WP:WPSCHOOLS is not doing a great job of making all this clear. I will put it on my watchlist if you have any further thoughts there is a space on my talkpage. Cheers.

ClemRutter (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

ClemRutter, the clearest explanation I've seen yet--perhaps the best service you could do WP would be to add some of this to the Osted page, which at the moment is too full of bureaucratic details to explain anything. (try , of course, to be sure that what you had has good sources). DGG ( talk ) 10:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Phil Bridger and ClemRutter have made compelling cases for the topic's notability. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2021 (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.