Talk:Downsend School

Fees

Downsend school costs £3000 - £4000 a term so only rich kids go there << Actually, no. I'm not rich and i used to go there, lots of the people there aren't rich, although some are, they're not all rich, they're just well off, plus they keep changing prices, it used to be a bit cheaper (at least that's what i gathered)

Merge

No rationale has been listed for this merge. This article is far too long to make a merge practical. Dahliarose (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The length of the article is not the point. The point is it only has 1 reference!! I tend to oppose deletions or mergers of any secondary school articles (who have pupils to at least the age of 16) But with Downsend the upper age range is 13. In order for this article to become notable we either need references showing notability OR at least some evidence of notable alumni. Bleaney (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But we don't merge articles just because they lack references! The age of the pupils makes no difference. "Notability" depends on the availability of references. 17:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And we dont keep articles because they are long!!! Are there any references establishing notability? Bleaney (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The school was founded in 1891 and normally sufficient references can be found to produce a decent standalone article for any school of this age apart from the really tiny village schools. I've not had time to search for any references as yet. The article had a merge tag dating back to June 2011. There had been no discussion about a merge on the talk page, and no reasons for the merge given so the tag seemed somewhat redundant. However, when I removed the tag another user reinstated but he still hasn't given any reasons as to why he thinks a merge is appropriate. Dahliarose (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ludicrously hard to find good online references, but there is no justification for the merge suggestion. How about finding more references? I found three in about 15 minutes work Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I didnt make the original merge suggestion. My point is simply that as of now this article doesnt meet notability standards. Bleaney (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It does, just. But it's a close run thing. I've added a number of references that pass WP:RS, but more are needed, and the advertcruft needs to be removed. I know pretty much nothing about the place, but I do know it's been around for ages. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

OpposeI must say the way this and a whole load of other Merge tags that seem to have been added to prep school articles without any attempt at justification strikes me as agenda pushing by a single editor. lack of references is most certainly not a reason for merger; lack of notability of course is, however such a lack has not been proven and indeed no attempt has been made to do so in almost all cases. 86.2.164.57 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per Dahliarose and Fiddle Faddle. Moonraker (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Downsend School/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article's pretty good but doesn't say about the uniform or the charity run thingies that the year 8s do, or the various sporting matches that the school participates in. Or the CHRISTMAS FAIR! Which is so fun. Good article but could do with more of the less official stuff. It sounds like an advertisement...

Last edited at 14:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downsend School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130831230856/http://m.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/story.html?aid=18011775 to http://m.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/story.html?aid=18011775

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)