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 no consensus. Looks like the discussion has run out of steam. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thrybergh Academy

Thrybergh Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Sources in the article are dead links and do not appear to be IS. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV   // Timothy :: talk  17:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  17:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  17:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Timothy, you are using that erroneous template again. I have answered all the points in the template on a nother page. We need to compare each one against the actual policy not our own preferences. Questions, did you read the article and discover the 10 RS references already given? Did you follow up the URN and Ofsted link in the infobox? Did you run a check on schools week or the TES (registring is free)? Did you run a google check on special measures? Did you read the two rotherham advertiser recent articles? ClemRutter (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Here are your 12 sources

• This is a dead link, appears to be a database report, fails V, almost certainly SIGCOV: John Doxey. "THRYBERGH COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL". Retrieved 4 May 2017.
• This is a dead link from the school, not IS: "About the School: Thrybergh Academy & Sports College". Vle.thryberghssc.org. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
• This is a government funding agreement, not IS, not SIGCOV: "Freedom of Information Request funding/140254_Thrybergh Academy Sports College_Rotherham" (PDF). cscpprod.blob.core.windows.net/. 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
• About a minor investigation into school spending that "appears excessive", not SIGCOV: "'Limit lunch portions to save money', say Agnew's advisers". Schools Week. 28 March * 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
• A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2003 Report
• A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2005 Report
• A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2006 Report
• A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2009 Report
• A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2013 Report
• A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2017 Report
• A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2019 Report
• A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2020 Corvid Report

ClemRutter, tell everyone which of the above is an INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCE with SIGCOV showing notability since you listed the "10 RS references already given? Did you follow up the URN and Ofsted link in the infobox?" in your post?

The problem here is clearly you do not understand what a independent reliable source is or what significant coverage means. Other than these there is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the kind any school would receive, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject Directly and Indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  01:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue: Hi, firstly getting personal, do get in touch if you are in the London area so we can share a drink, and I can show you around a bit. We do have a London Virtual Meetup 163 if you want to get virtual.

But your analysis of the sources is way off beam. Firstly if you read an Ofsted Report you will discover just how full and rich they are, suggesting they are 'routine' is far from the truth. I see you have spent a lot of time documenting former CCCP institutiions- the UK does not work like that. I try not to edit US schools articles as frankly I don't understand the system--how do US schools operate without an independent assessment system?

In UK schools the interest is finance, governance, teaching philosophy, outcomes, the buildings, the communities served. We have one routine government source known as GIAS- we link to that through the URN in the infobox. There you will find the links to previous schools, and a link to all available independent ofsted reports. That is your starting point. WP:I is clear that GIAS as government report is good, and it does fulfil W:SIGCOV as it addresses the topic directly (there is no mention of quantity of information needed) I didn't even mention that one. If you start examining the Ofsted reports, you will find several types- section 5s are critical to the schools, section 8s often lead to section 5s but for our point of view they both are excellent sources. They both give a technical description of the school and its intake and current enrollment. In the body of the report is a critical description of various aspects of management, teaching, safeguarding etc, with examples that can be useful to us, but IMHO not as useful for stubs and starts . We have the bonus that later ones have a OGL license which is CC-BY-SA 3.0.

There are a mass of school articles that need to be destubbed Category:North American school stubs for example, I think we do have a bigger problem with internationalisation, and the large number of Indian schools that are intuatively important but are located in areas with poor English language coverage. That's for another day. ClemRutter (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG, per source analysis above. (t · c) buidhe 11:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Available sources sufficient to establish notability, as with any other British secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment A question regarding whether Ofsted reports should be considered independent sources demonstrating notability has been posted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ofsted school inspection repoorts for discussion.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   01:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This is a close rerun of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putteridge High School ClemRutter (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Not really, but I did mention it. If you decide to do a deletion review to reopen it, wait until after the noticeboard thread closes.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   12:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Article is well sourced and notable. Bleaney (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Thrybergh - In my view, Ofsted reports don't move the notability needle, as I explained at RSN. The remaining sources don't seem adequate, either: refs 1, 2, and 3 fail the GNG criteria (as explained by TimothyBlue), and number 4 refers to the school just once in a lengthy article about a broader topic. Putting that all together, we have one trivial and tangential reference and nothing else. That fails WP:GNG, as far as I'm concerned. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
• Comment - I have expanded this article with independent references that I believe help further support notability. Bleaney (talk) 10:46, 23 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.