Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chobham Academy

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. Michig (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chobham Academy

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

Does not even meet the basic criterion for a school, being in actual operation. The only thing of any significance is that it will occupy a building used in the 2012 Olympics. I don't think that makes for notability , or shall we do this for every repurposed building from that event ? DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: secondary schools (or schools including secondary education) are notable, and per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Schools that are being planned or built, except high schools reliably sourced to be opened within 12 months, are being deleted." (I added emphasis.) Ansh666 01:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I have great respect for DGG, I find Ansh666's argument to be more persuasive. This school offering secondary education opens in a few months, and its unusual building has already received coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This article is entirely written in future tense, so at its best it was intended to be a temporary article. Outcomes is an essay that does not override WP:NOT, including WP:PROMOTION and WP:CRYSTAL. Unscintillating (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be improved, though, right? That's more a content issue than a notability issue. Ansh666 07:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is a guideline, WP:Deletion policy is a policy. Given that the article is worthless, notability is not at issue. Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future tense is entirely appropriate when discussing a notable venture that has not yet begun operation. I see no indication that the article is "temporary" as it will no doubt be edited to reflect the opening of the school in September. It is now on my watch list. I see no excessively promotional language. If you do, Unscintillating, please feel free to edit for neutrality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors do not know the future, so using Wikipedia's voice to report the future cannot be WP:V verifiable. Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone doesn't understand that this article is temporary, imagine reading this same article a year from now. The article would still be the dated opinions of Wikipedia editors that would require another source to find out if the events predicted had actually come to pass. Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are likely to be things that have actually happened that can be stated in a way that will both remain timeless and can be verified. For example, at [1], I changed the sentence from saying, "The first class is expected to begin instruction in August of 2013." to "Recruiting began on 3 May 2012 for a class of 150 to begin study in August of 2013.< ref name = ...> However, AfD is not cleanup. At Wikipedia, we don't need to predict the future, we can wait for it. In this case this article can wait until October 2013 at which point editors will not be tempted to predict the future. Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you citing for deletion? The article doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL as it is verifiable (I don't see any need for the speculation tags, either), nor does it seem promotional in any way. In any case, as you said, AfD is not cleanup. There's a reason that more of WP:Deletion policy is given to Wikipedia:ATD (alternatives to deletion) than reasons for deletion. Ansh666 18:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are not written so that there is more weight based on the amount of text. Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion item #14 states, "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia", which has a hidden link to WP:What Wikipedia is not. Since you are interested in alternatives to deletion, you might be interested in what is happening at the incubator, see WT:Article incubator. Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I think the concerns with WP:NOT you've cited have been addressed here. Ansh666 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any places left in the article that use Wikipedia's voice to report the future? Do these Wikipedians have a crystal ball? Using Wikipedia's voice to report the future cannot be WP:V verifiable. Unscintillating (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V more carefully. WP:V involves WP:RS and WP:OR - what WP:CRYSTAL is trying to prevent is unsourced or OR speculation. WP:CRYSTAL does not state that any future event (or in this case, school) should not have an article. By your logic, for example, the 2016 Summer Olympics should not have an article either, since as it has not yet happened its future existence is "unverifiable". Ansh666 04:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you haven't answered my question, "Are there any places left in the article that use Wikipedia's voice to report the future?" (evidence). Telling me to read more carefully is a comparison without an antecedent. There is also no antecedent in which I have said this topic should not have an article, so your logic appears to be setting up straw men. Your logic IMO mixes up the current state of planning for a future event, which is verifiable; with the future event itself, which may or may not happen. What happened for the 2012 Summer Olympics was that rather than write timeless encyclopedic material, editors started reporting the medal totals over a year in advance. Day after day the report was accurate and up-to-date. Do you think people around the world respected Wikipedia's accurate and up-to-date reports, or felt that they were a work in progress? (Ans: a work in progress). Should that article have been in mainspace, or in the incubator? (Ans: incubator). Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view on that is that that question is irrelevant. Also, so what if it's a "work in progress"? This isn't a content discussion, it's a deletion discussion. What evidence is there that this article is not notable? Also, since you mentioned it, you might want to see Blueboar's comment here. Incubator would be a very bad place for this at present, and I don't think there's a user to give it to to keep in their space. Anyways, I'm leaving for a few weeks after tomorrow, so we'll see what happens. Ansh666 07:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it more, our positions on this article are actually really similar, but we're just advocating different solutions; I don't think that the article is bad enough to move out of mainspace, but you do. In any case, I'm leaving, so unless someone else takes this up this discussion should be over. Ansh666 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it may not be open till September but is a reality for the pupils who will have been applying for places there months ago. Of course the article will need to be updated later, but the bare bones of location, sponsors, academy status, school website link, are worth keeping at this stage. I've added a link to the Admission Criteria doc on Newham council website, which gives a bit more background about the school. PamD 08:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Blatant failure of WP:BEFORE. For example, see Architecture Today for a detailed account of the site's design and construction. The idea that schools have to be in operation to be documented here is nonsense. For example, I started Great Ealing School which has not operated for over 100 years. Warden (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, it's more the fact that DGG is saying the schools have to have operated at some point, not that they have to be operating now. There's quite a difference. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still nonsense. Notability is all about the sources and this place has an abundance. Arbitrary rules should be ignored per WP:BURO, WP:OWN and WP:CREEP. Warden (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:OWN has any relevance here, just saying. Ansh666 04:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary rules are an attempt to own an entire topic area or domain of knowledge. They give undue weight to the personal opinions of the editors who create them. Warden (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining! Ansh666 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there were any doubt about the academy's opening then it would not be warranted, but given that the local authority has issued its admissions criteria (referenced in the article) it is worthy of being kept. Furthermore it has received significant media attention in publications as diverse as BBC News' School Report and Architecture Today. This is a notable institution, I have added a couple of extra references and will find more that add weight to the article. To delete it would be nonsense. --Bob Re-born (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The school has been confirmed to be openinf by various sources, it will be a secondary school which are normally accepted on Wikipedia with their own articles AND its location in a former Olympic building further add notability. Bleaney (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I eliminated the useless speculation tags left in the article, since the information has been confirmed in reliable sources. Not bothering to look through all the search results for this. Common sense, there is no reason this school wouldn't be listed, when almost all others of the type are. Whether it opened yet or not isn't relevant, no sense deleting this only to recreate it again in a few months. Dream Focus 18:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep I would withdraw the AfD and close as keep, but there was someone else who said delete. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn As indicated by the guideline at WP:SK, my !vote now represents the AfD nomination, but I don't claim to have done WP:BEFORE analysis to prepare the community for a deletion discussion, so I withdraw my "nomination". Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2013 (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.