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. The relevant question is whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this school, and in my view, the participants of this discussion are divided as to whether the available sourcing passes that test—specifically, the two Guardian sources seem to contribute to notability, but there is no consensus either way. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkby 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)

This school is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, as per WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.

As noted on the talk page, when I originally enquired into this, school pupils do not make the school notable on their own, as per WP:ORG. "An organisation is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it" Neon (Talk) 16:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Neon (Talk) 16:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Neon (Talk) 16:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The rubric for GNG can be confusing. We are here to discuss the Wikipedia concept of Notability not fame or unusual aspects or notability. We need to prove that there are at least two independent reports about the school. Here we have 3 Ofsted reports that track its rough history. One , two and three. The Liverpool echo is the paper to visit for further reports, and this gives us analysis of the stats. We don't need more to prove notability but Liverpool Echo Feature article is on how the school came out of special measures. This is also the successor to Ruffwood School, and the Guardian Feature is a delight to read and give more material. There is no question, this meets WP:N and the article is almost writing itself. ClemRutter (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Ofsted is a government-assisted agency that is required by law to write reports about the school, and secondly, Liverpool Echo gives minor coverage of the school as it is one of the few secondary schools in the region, and the school and perhaps Liverpool echo "fake" some of what they say and probably cant be trusted. Neon (Talk)

• Delete due to this lacking multiple in-depth independent refences about it that are independent of the school, neutral, and not extremely run of the mill. The first three references provided by ClemRutter are neither independent or neutral. They are also extremely run of the mill. As is evidence by such sentences in them as "Pupils are strongly encouraged to develop a social conscience and to care about their community." Which could apply to any school out there and ultimately tells us nothing encyclopedically meaningful about it.

Also, the Echo references are just more of the same. One is just basic run of the mill government derived stats like what proportion of the schools students are persistently absent, which is again is extremely run of the mill, and the other isn't much better due to just being an interview with the headteacher that contains such WP:MILL quotes in it as "It’s about building up the identity, that’s so crucial. And then there’s the pride." None of that is enough to build an article off of, that isn't mainly a POV issue filled advert.

The only reference that might work is the one from The Guardian, but that's extremely questionable also due to the lack of any real coverage of the school in it. Since out of four short paragraphs dealing with Ruffwood the longest is only the personal opinion of a person on if they would have gone there or not if they hadn't of offered A-Levels. Again, that's nothing to make this pass WP:GNG or any other notability standard though. Nor does anything else seem to make it do so. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas Adam @Adamant1: Nice of you to pop by. You have your own rule of three- I have given you five. You love the phrase 'run of the mill' which is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia provided you have the sources. There is an wiki- essay that gives another editors POV- not policy. Ofsted is really the strongest source you can get- and what wikipedia is looking for, independent from government and forensic in its judgement. There are numerous Liverpool echo articles on the closure drama. Numerous-Google to see.It amuses me that any one has to embroider WP:GNG(actually WP:N) with other WP:XXs that all point back to WP:GNG when you read them. Good to see you are a Guardian reader it really is a fascinating article, and sufficient source in itself. You ignore the fact that the bar we have to cross is that we need to show a sufficient source exists (not show them)- though I like you would prefer to see at least two. A simple Google on Ruffwood School delivers pages of material, and the name Alan Barnes the pioneer in comprehensive education. All we are supposed to do is prove there is notable material around- not write the article-- but there is nothing to stop you from trying as I have done most of the research. ClemRutter (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This school isnt Ruffwood and if we were to speak about the schools history, we probably could include most primary schools at that rate Neon (Talk)

• Keep. Easily enough coverage for notability, as with any British secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). The sources in the article:

"Kirky High School" : Not an IS RS to establish notability.

"Is Knowsley Council Waving Goodbye to its responsibility for educationon the quiet?". falseeconomy.org.uk. : Dead link, but appears to be about the community council not the school.

"Kirkby High School - GOV.UK". get-information-schools.service.gov.uk. Not an IS RS to establish notability.

Crockfords (London, Church House, 1995) ISBN 0-7151-8088-6 : Notability is not inherited from former students.

The sources above are three government statistical reports which do not meet IS RS or SIGCOV, one magazine statistical report which does not meet SIGCOV, and one community interest story that does not meet SIGCOV. In fairness, the Guardian ref could be considered SIGCOV, and is obviously from a very IS RS.   // Timothy :: talk  23:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have spoken elsewhere about the significance of Section 5 and Section 8 Ofsted Reports which are strongly WP:RS and cannot be considered statistical! In Wikipedia speak SIGCOV means that the reference addresses the subject and has nothing to do with the quantity of information. Do look at the content of the source I have quoted, add to the article. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of sources establishing notability about this and its predecessor schools. Bleaney (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This 2015 Guardian Feature is a strong enough alone to fix WP:N. ClemRutter (talk) 13:34, 9 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.