Jump to content

Talk:Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.246.99.12 (talk) at 14:24, 25 August 2012 (→‎Edit request on 20 August 2012: i). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This article does not satisfy GNG

Quite happy to support this at the next AfD, writing swathes of text, while ignoring policy, guidelines, or demand for proof, is no exemption from proving that this prep school is notable. So far, all the arguments I have seen can be resumed as "I can shout louder", "I can write more (niah!)" and "I can cite a pile of shit", your sources are rubbish, trivial, fleeting mentions of the school, and in no way in depth, this is preoccupying, there is not a single source that attests to the school's general, enduring notability, no point doing the Afd thing and listing all the (rubbish) sources, I can read thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best thing would be for someone to nominate this again. The discussion on this page isn't progressing. An informed admin decision would be the best way forward. isfutile:P (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and your continual refusal to address the issues in question would be interesting to analyse, where is the notability of this school? (Certainly not in the fleeting mentions in the local newspapers). CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said - the best place to discuss would be in AFD. I can't nominate since I would be voting to Keep. However I do think it would move the discussion forward if it went back to AFD at this stage, and I'd be happy to join the discussion there. isfutile:P (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to wait at least two weeks before restarting the AFD as per the original administrative request. Woodleigh is an old organization and secondary sources might exist offline. I think it would be unfair to restart the AFD without sufficient time to identify potential sources. I mostly agree with CaptainScreebo that the sources we have today are insufficient for GNG. So far we only have one article[1] which is substantially about the school, the rest is a jumble of sportst-trivia and routine achievement... the kind of thing we might expect from almost any school. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I draw other editors' attention to what the General notability guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Several of the existing sources plainly "address the subject directly in detail", and there is no requirement for more than that. In particular, "it need not be the main topic". Would someone please notify me if an afd is started? I shall be supporting the view that the school is notable. Moonraker (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the Gazette & Herald feature you mentioned above has some good detail, and more could be made of Memories of Woodleigh School. There is some detail, although less, in the standard references relied on, such as the Good Schools Guide. I don't agree with your comment that this is "the kind of thing we might expect from almost any school". Even if that were correct, the GNB does not rule out most of a class of things being notable. For instance, almost all members of parliament are notable. If almost all schools had significant coverage in reliable sources, then almost all schools would be notable under the GNG. Moonraker (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of sources in relation to notability

At this point in the discussion, I think it might make things clearer to have a full review of the sources found so far in one place. To that end, I'm listing them all under subheadings below. Please add your comments on each source under its subheading. This will probably end up being a huge thread, so please keep comments relevent and as brief as possible - the question for each source is: does it satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG (ie. is it inedependent (created by someone unrelated to the school), reliable (subject to editorial controls), and significant coverage (not a listing or a passing mention)? I believe all of the sources are appropriate for verification. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity I propose
  • This section should be re-titled to something like "Discusion of WP:GNG (notability) in light of sources"
  • Other editors should feel free to add additional sources for discussion, especially off-line sources which the average editor might not have access to. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on both points, section retitled accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GENUKI: Langton

"Langton". GENUKI. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Does not appear to mention the school. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images of England: Langton Hall

"Langton Hall", National Monuments Record: Images of England; English Heritage Retrieved 27 April 2012

Coverage of building, not of school. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hull Daily Mail

A R Barden (11 July 1929). "Woodleigh School's First Public Event". Hull Daily Mail. p. 4. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Although not available online, this looks as though it would cover the school in some detail, and would definitely pass GNG. Good find, Tony; would you be willing to post a brief outline of the article here, just so that we can have some idea of what it covers? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm at the library now. The microfiche article is a write up of a sort of one off event held for the end of the first year where local dignitaries attended, speeches were made etc. There was a marquee. There's mention of the number of pupils and how the school started and the progress during the first year. Brief details regarding plans for the future. About 150-200 words in the Hessle news page.isfutile:P (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ideal. Thanks for tracking it down. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gazette & Herald: Karen Darley article

Darley, Karen (26 May 2010). "A Visit to Woodleigh School in Langton". Gazette & Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Several paragraphs on school. Independent (despite extensive interview with HM), reliable, significant coverage. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gazette & Herald: Claire Metcalfe article

Claire, Metcalfe (23 November 2006). "Langton". Gazette and Herald. Retrieved 27 April 2012.

Mentions school, just about passes GNG in my book. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC History People's War Project: Joanna Passmore article

Passmore, Joanna (12 January 2006). "WW2 People's War". BBC History, WW2 People's War project – An archive of World War Two memories. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Recollections from daughter of first HM. Not independent, sourced to BBC but unlikely to have been fact-checked due to size and nature of project. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Post: Richard Vyse obituary

"Richard Howard-Vyse". Yorkshire Post. Fri 20 November 2009. Retrieved 27 April 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

No mention of school. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National archives: correspondence

"NORCLIFFES OF LANGTON, FAMILY PAPERS, AND PARISH REGISTER TRANSCRIPTS FOR WALKINGTON AND BARMSTON". East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service. National Archives. Retrieved 27 April 2012.

No mention of school. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of Woodleigh School

Joanna Passmore & Mary Robertson (1987). Memories of Woodleigh School. Foursquare Press. p. 11.

Book by daughters of HM. Possibly not reliable (not a major publishing house, editorial oversight unknown), significant coverage, but not independent. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images of England: Entrance gates

Entrance gates to Langton Hall and flanking wall. National Monuments Record listing at Images of England.

Image of gates, no coverage of school. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Boarding Schools Group

"List of Schools". York Boarding Schools Group (YBSG). Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Directory listing. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Companies House

"Company Details". Companies House. Retrieved 27 April 2012.
"Langton Hall Language School". Companies House. Retrieved 27 April 2012.

Company listing, not significant coverage in my view. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Schools Directory

"UK Rankings". The Independent Schools Directory. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Reviews from 12 pupils and ex-pupils, user-generated content. Factual information provided by school. Not independent, not a notable listing. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodleigh School website

"Learning support". Woodleigh School. Retrieved 27 April 2012.
"Sport". Woodleigh School. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
"Notable Alumni". Woodleigh School. 2011. Retrieved 27 April 2012.

Not independent. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CReSTeD report

"Crested Report". CRESTED. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Reliable and independent, but out-of-date; cannot be used to verify current information. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be used to infer notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Schools Guide

"Woodleigh School". Good Schools Guide. Retrieved 27 April 2012.

I'm on the fence with this - alone, it's definitely insufficient; in combination with other sources... perhaps. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply a directory listing. According to the website: "We feature all 30,000+ schools in the UK". The printed guide is different and actually reviews 1100+ schools independently. The school has not been reviewed. The content of the Woodleigh School online entry (Self-portrait and SEN provision) is from the school itself. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISBI listing

"Woodleigh School". ISBI Independent Schools. Retrieved 27 April 2012.

Directory listing. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Eleven Magazine

Milner, Natalie (20 March 2012). "Special Educational Needs: our recommended schools". First Eleven Magazine. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Inclusion in a list, no actual coverage. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malton & Pickering Mercury: Young Rydale musician...

"Young Ryedale musician hits high note to win scholarship". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Passing mention of the school. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gazette & Herald: Young writers competition

"Winners announced in Malton Literature Festival's young writers competition". Gazette and Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Passing mention of school. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gazette & Herald: Authors tell their tales

"Authors tell their tales in the classroom". Gazette and Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Personally I believe this to be press copy derived from the school, however, that's not something I've confirmed. I don't think this constitutes suffient coverage of the school to pass GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Evening News

"Speaking highly of pupils". Scarborough Evening News. 8 August 2008. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Another passing mention. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malton & Pickering Mercury

"Youngsters win literature prize in regional final". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

A passing mention of the school. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gazette & Herald:Rydale pupils join county set

"Pupils joining the county set". Gazette and Herald. 23 May 2009. Retrieved 26 April 2012.

Local news coverage of a school cricket team winning a match, not significant, no coverage of the school itself. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's something of a misrepresentation. The school is covered since it was the school which won. The team/pupils represent the school and not the other way around . And is wasn't a regular match but the county finals tournament which was won. This is a very uncommon event in the history or any school . I think this source indicates notability. isfutile:P (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, it was the semi-final they won (final line: "They now go on to the county finals, which are being held next month at Leeds Grammar School."), and it was in Under 11's eight-a-side cricket; not really a notable sporting field. In addition, it's not an uncommon event - two schools win this semi-final every single year. This doesn't strike me as anything more than a local paper covering a local school's sporting fixtures; every local paper covers schools in this way. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it was the county finals. The region involved, Yorkshire is slightly different to the rest of England. North Yorkshire is the county. Which the school won . The county finals refed in the source are the all Yorkshire finals (which is actually the regional not county finals) The all Yorkshire finals incorporate the winners of north Yorkshire, east Yorkshire, south Yorkshire and west Yorkshire. That year they were held in Leeds which is west Yorkshire. it is highly unusual for a school to win a county finals. More than 300 schools enter each season in each age group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs) 12:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Been a while since I were 'oop North... But nevertheless, surely a school wins the final every single year? It might be unusual for any given school, but it's not actually an unusual event for a school to win... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are arguing over the perceived importance of U11s eight-a-side county-cricket. The issue at stake is not whether you or I think it is important or unimportant but whether reliable secondary sources (e.g. national broadsheet newspapers) consider this variant of the game important enough to report on individual fixtures. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malton & Pickering Mercury: National call-up for Tom

"National call-up for Tom". Malton and Pickering Mercury. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Passing mention of the school. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Press

"Matthew Proctor joins Lord's Taverners 100 Club". The Press. 24 July 2010. Retrieved 27 April 2012.

Minimal coverage of school (Proctor is a pupil, quote from HM, the school gave him a new bat). Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Taverner's Club

"The Centurions Award Hall Of Fame". Lord's Taverners. Retrieved 27 April 2012.

No coverage of school. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Grocer: articles on card game

Chomka, Stefan (4 June 2007). "TrumpThat!". The Grocer. Retrieved 25 April 2012.
Chomka, Stefan (15 September 2007). "Momentum building to get card game into every school". The Grocer. Retrieved 25 April 2012.

No coverage of school itself. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Grocer magazine ran an article about the initiative which aimed to raise funding from public and private sources", it's promotional in tone and therefore not neutral. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as per reasons already stated. If you have concerns why not send to RS and let them decide? isfutile:P (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Evening News: University to honour director

"University to honour director". Scarborough Evening News. Retrieved 24 April 2012.

Passing mention. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion of sources & review methodology

There seems to be a false assumption in this analysis that all reliable sources will be easily found online. Dahliarose (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
agreed . I also note that some sources have been omitted. Worryingly there is also a misunderstanding about the inherent nature of a school. A school is the sum of its pupils and staff. The pupils and staffs achievements at the school are inherently the schools achievements and not the other way around. To argue the inverse, which seems to be what other editors are doioing, would be to restrict any notability to simply the opening or the closing of the school ie sources which would describe only the school as a non tangible entity on paper. That seems a very peculiar point of view to me.
For those reasons, unfortunately I think the above analysis is severely flawed. The articles relating to school events all offer good coverage of the school. Those relating to the building are there to reference the text re the history of the building. Their purpose is not to satisfy the notability of the school. isfutile:P (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above list includes all the sources which were (are?) in the article at the time of writing (some, such as the multiple references to Woodleigh School's own website, are listed together under the same heading, but I'm pretty sure I didn't omit any). If more references are added, it would be helpful to list them here too. My intent above was not to provide a comprehensive analysis of my own, but to create a single thread for discussion of the sources; sorry if that wasn't very clear. And of course, offline sources are perfectly valid; if they are found, I have no problem with using them.
I'm interested in the relation of the sources to notability because if/when the AfD runs again, we will have to determine whether the guidelines at WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG are satisfied. If we're agreed that some of the sources, such as those verifying information on the building, are clearly not useful for notability, then there's no need to discuss them further.
With regards to the "school is the sum of its pupils" argument, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. In my view, for the purposes of notability, the school is an entity in and of itself. Notability isn't inherited; for example, a business is not considered wiki-notable purely by virtue of having a notable CEO (just as the CEO be notable purely for having a notable business). The pupils activities, whilst important to the article, are not necessarily the school's activities. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The test for me would be whether the achievement was dependent on the school. For example the national footballer callup piece the event was not dependent on the school , and therefore I would agree with you. But the county cricket piece, the achievement was by the school team and not the individuals. The achievement could not have happened without the school and was dependent upon the school, and therefore I would argue that the notability was conferred upon the school primarily. Put simply if you asked someone to describe the source by asking them who the article was referring to: 1st piece is about TH being called up to national squad. 2nd piece is about WS team winning the county cricket. Surely the notablIty is conferred upon the subject of the source article?. isfutile:P (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, are you making an argument for notability of the subject or for inclusion of this anecdote into the subject if it is found notable? If it's the former are you arguing that every achievement which depends on the subject institution contributes to that institution's notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing neither of your two suggestions. my argument is that notability is conferred upon the subject of the article source. In this case the WS cricket team. isfutile:P (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues now at the Reliable sources noticeboard

Two issues about the sourcing for assertions in this article have been referred to the Reliable sources noticeboard . They are in sections Potentially misleading use of independantschools.com ( Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire ) and Reliable sources for Specific Learning Difficulties provision (Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire). - Voceditenore (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be better if every source was sent to RS. Then it will prevent the RS argument being raised spuriously. isfutile:P (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern. I propose to only submit what we consider to be the most controversial of issues. I do not want to spam RS/N. No doubt other editors with an interest in policing reliable sources will investigate this article if they see fit. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Salimfadhley, and please note that the RSN deals with specific statements and the sources used to support those specific statements, not every single source used in the article. At least 5 editors have expressed concern about the sourcing for the SEN provision and its potential to mislead, which was the query that I raised at RSN today. This is not a "spurious" issue. I actually consider it quite serious. I have no intention of raising other issues. Although some of them detract from the article's credibility in my view, they are relatively minor. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the edit warring by IPs that ignores discussion at this talk page, I've semiprotected the article indefinitely — not because it needs permanent semiprotection, but because I'm not sure when semiprotection should end. Feel free to unprotect (or request unprotection) whenever you believe that it's not needed anymore; you don't have to notify me or anything like that. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that protecting the article is against policy, yes? The blocking and protection policies clearly require blocking the individual editors instead of locking down the article. Why do you see it fit to ignore this policy? 134.241.58.240 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, quote please? In cases where multiple non-confirmed editors (or one person using multiple non-confirmed accounts or IP addresses) are causing problems at an article, semiprotection is appropriate. Per my statement above, you are free to request unprotection if you believe that the protection is no longer helpful here. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes, "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others." This case is an isolated issue of IPs from the high school attempting to edit the article, not a large-scale edit war. I really don't know why I, an IP, has to explain basic blocking policy to you, a veteran administrator. It seriously calls into question your familiarity with the policies regarding page protection and editor blocking. I suggest you defer all future administrative actions until you have completed remedial education and training on adminship. 134.241.58.240 (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making my point for me. "Isolated" this situation is not — we have several IPs messing with this article, and none of them are getting close to violating the three-revert rule, so the blocking policy does not permit me to block any of them. What's more, one of the IPs has been using this talk page, and there's nothing wrong with that, and the IPs originate from multiple ranges, so a rangeblock is impossible. Please request changes by using the {{editsemiprotected}} template, not by calling for an administrator's head. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the block, as an independent admin who works on these articles. I think the semiprotection a very good idea. I disagree it should be indefinite, and have changed it to 4 months. One danger with indefinite is that removing it will be accidentally omitted. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it should have been removed or modified whenever appropriate; thanks for making that decision. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the "ranking" based on independentschools.com

"Woodleigh School is ranked 12th out of 1,010 independent coeducational schools in England by the Independent School Directory based on ratings from users of their website", referenced to this, which is based solely on these, with the explicit disclaimer that "independentschools.com does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of these reviews and opinions, and does not perform an independent investigation to verify their truth or accuracy."

We have at least four editors on this talk page expressing the view that this source and the assertion (in its various forms) is inappropriate "cherry-picked" content based solely on anonymous user-generated data, i.e. glowing "reviews" of the school written by anonymous "alumni", "parents", and "current pupils". (See the sections above concerns WP:PUFFERY and misleading use of source.) Interestingly, yet another cookie-cutter glowing "review" appeared last week, the day this issue was first raised. At least three further editors have removed the statement with edit summaries citing the same reason. See also this damning comment at the Reliable sources notice board. The statement was re-added with the edit summary "Where is consensus against?" and re-added again when reverted with "I think since this was taken to RSN editors should at least wait for consensus". I believe that there is a considerable consensus against using both the statement and its source in the article and no evidence to the contrary. Discuss. Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that consensus at RSN appears to be against retaining this source. (In the interests of transparency, I should add that I've just come from there after leaving a tick in the "against" column myself.) User:Despayre has been tentatively in favour of retaining it, with caveats (but suggests finding more rigorous sources), John, DGG, Cameron Scott, Voceditenore, Salimfadhley and myself have all protested its inclusion, and have pointed to the fact that we have a guideline on sourcing that specifically discourages the use of such sources. I'd call that pretty clear, policy-based consensus against keeping the reference. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also the comments by Dahliarose on this talk page who has stated that she also would prefer this statement to be deleted altogether for the same reasons [2]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
happy to abide by a genuine consensus. However, 1. it hasn't been up there for very long and 2 if the source and text is removed then so should the RS tag on the article. isfutile:P (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had added [dubious – discuss] after the statement to alert readers/editors to discussion on this specific issue here on the talk page. Can you please explain why you have just reverrted this as "Non constructive tagging"? Voceditenore (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two issues here. Despayre said that the website is a reliable source for referencing solely the fact that Woodleigh School is placed 12th in its rankings of user-generated content. The point here is that this is a content issue, in addition to a reliable source issue. Should the article include a cherry-picked "ranking" based entirely on extremely dubious user-generated (i.e. unreliable) content? My view is no and I believe that is the view of the majority of editors here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have requested access to The Sunday Times "Parent Power" school league table for 2011. This is arguably the UK's most notable and respected school league table. It has the benefit of being independently compiled and backed up by a major publisher of repute. If Woodleigh school is similarly ranked in this more respected league table then I think it's a good justification for keeping IndependantSchools.com. If not it's arguably cherry-picking to keep this reference. Can I urge you all to keep the matter open until I've obtained this offline source. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately WS does not appear to be listed in that resource. isfutile:P (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Woodleigh was listed in the Sunday Times rankings (which Tony suggests it isn't), that wouldn't make the IS.com reference any more valid. The compliers take their data from completely different sources, and are wholly independant of one another. Seems a moot point, though, if Woodleigh doesn't even feature on the ST league table. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I doubt if Woodleigh School will appear at all on the Times school league tables, but its absence wouldn't tell us anything one way or another . The Times ranking for prep schools is based on the results for the government's Key Stage 2, level 5 tests. Independent schools are not required to use those tests, and many (possibly the majority) do not, preferring their own achievement tests. Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
agreed: replacing or augmenting with another likely contested source wouldn't be positive - as I said before, if the consensus is genuine, by all means remove that section. However, I still think it could do with a little longer for consensus to emerge. In light of comments above, perhaps despayre could be asked to provide further. isfutile:P (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC) clarification. Happy to go along with whatever he suggests. isfutile:P (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that this sentence should be removed. It is misleading to quote one league table out of context. This survey is in any case based on a very small sample size, is reliant on user-submitted comments on a website, and is open to manipulation. I have a subscription to the Times/Sunday Times and have access to the Parent Power database on their website. In the April league tables published by Parent Power, Woodleigh School is not listed amongst the top 430 independent schools: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Parent_Power/. However, that is not surprising as these rankings are based on A level and GCSE performance, and you would not expect a school that has a significant proportion of special needs pupils to feature so highly. This is one reason why we rely on secondary sources for Wikipedia, as the secondary sources interpret the material for us, which is much preferable to Wikipedia editors cherry-picking the tables that put their school in the best light. If this sentence is removed then I think the reliable sources tag should also be removed. I don't think there's any problem with the reliability of any of the other sources, and the article is now well referenced. Dahliarose (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dahliarose, thank you for correcting my earlier proposal. I agree that whatever the Times parent power table may say it's not germane to this question. I think we have a strong consensus to remove the misleading and unreliable IndependantSchools.com source. Since you have already considered this source there is no point in waiting for me to review it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised I was looking at the wrong page in the league tables. I was looking at the secondary schools rather than the prep schools. The Sunday Times has a listing of the top 150 prep schools, but Woodleigh is not in the list. However, these tables are based on performance in SATs tests at Key Stage 2, and not all private schools take the SATS tests, so these league tables can be very misleading. Dahliarose (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any other league table we might consider, preferably one based on pupil and parent satisfaction? I'm trying to avoid cherry-picking here. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Dahliarose, I don't think we should quote any league table rankings (basically primary sources), unless a school's ranking on a particular table was deemed sufficiently notable/newsworthy to be covered in depth by reliable secondary sources. And I certainly don't think we should be reporting junk rankings like those produced by independentschools.com. Voceditenore (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a red herring - the consideration of other sources has nothing to do with the actual discussion - let us concentrate on if the independantschools.com should be used - that is the only question that should be settled in this section. A discussion about the relative merits of other sources should be in it's own section not used here to muddy the conversation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron, you are right. Let's just get rid of it. Consensus is overwhelming. There is no point in further discussion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that consensus was ever required here. The guidance on reliable sources per WP:USERG is explicit, user generated material is not acceptable. It is even more obviously unacceptable when the website in question disavows its own content. Things like imdb ratings, scores from ratemyprofessors and the website currently under discussion are unacceptable for very good and obvious reasons. Personally, I'm amazed that someone at RSN thought it acceptable. —92.2.91.151 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern. In this case we had a number of objections from editors involved with this article. We have taken those objections into account, given additional consideration to this source and still find it unreliable. I'd say that the time for debate is over. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, it's not even clear to me what reason was given to keep this unreliable source beyond "because"? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading through the first few reviews of the school on the site, the tone and language of the reviews is very odd for people who profess to be young boys of around 13-15, there is one boy who says he has written two other reviews, and there is someone (presumably a teacher) who somehow knows the name of an anonymous reviewer and is encouraging other boys from the school to give positive reviews. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to be bold and remove the content derived from the unreliable source as the consensus here is overwhelmingly in favour of its removal. I've also taken the opportunity to anglicise the headings. Academics refers to people in British English not to the subjects taught at a school as in American English! Dahliarose (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This really had gone on far too long when the consensus to remove it was overwhelming as well as being thoroughly grounded in policy. And kudos for your re-structuring of the new Curriculum section. A big improvement! Voceditenore (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to everybody involved. I think this approach to discussing sources is very productive. Would anybody be interested in discussing the suitability for inclusion of other sections of this article? I'm thinking of the EdStats (top-trumps game) anecdote. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 20 August 2012

Please change the below text from: "Woodleigh School is a preparatory school for boys and girls aged 3 to 13, located in the village of Langton, North Yorkshire, England. As of 2012, it has 61 pupils, a mixture of day children and boarders.[2] The school is situated at Langton Hall, historically the seat of the Norcliffe family.[3] The Hall, now owned by their descendants, the Howard-Vyse family, and leased to Woodleigh School, is a Grade II listed building.[4]"

to replace with accurate information contained in the new text below: "Woodleigh School is a preparatory school for boys and girls aged 3 to 13, which was until recently located in the village of Langton, North Yorkshire, England. As of August 2012, it has ceased to operate from Langton Hall."

81.155.229.145 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also the text is not clear and looses information from the original text. Is the school closing all together or just at a specific location? Keith D (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot talk to the school's future plans as it has not updated its own website. What I can confirm is that Woodleigh School is unfortunately no longer operating a business or in occupation of Langton Hall and the current wikipedia text is therefore misleading should be immediately altered to reflect this fact. I am sure they would verify this status themselves should you choose to contact them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.229.145 (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ObtundTalk 22:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing pending supply of reliable sources. There is a backlog here. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'parent company' Woodleigh School Langton Ltd is in liquidation. However, looking at Companies House records, a number of companies have 'owned' Woodleigh School since 1978. Unfortunately this doesn't shed any light on whether or not the 'school' has closed. It may simply have transferred into new ownership. A reliable third party source would be useful to clarify this. Surely if the school had closed there would be something in a local newspaper or on the school website? 213.246.99.12 (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire&oldid=509091312"