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.  JGHowes  ^talk 17:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lesmahagow 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)

Doesn't seems to pass WP:GNG for school. Pilean (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am looking at www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk which seems to tick all the boxes. Scotland is outside my comfort zone- devolution and different legal system- so I can't say how independent the governors of the school, ( thus the subject ) are from the LEA. The LEA have left us with a superb inspection report that the school was required to publish.

This is merely an underdeveloped notable article. A spot of reading of WP:WPSCH/AG may help ClemRutter (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: 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 article are not IS RS (school and gov), or are commmon local news stories that do not show notability. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  12:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Timothy- could you please study what I posted above- WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV- all was covered by www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk, Deletions of UK schools rarely succeed because the existence of independant inspections/reports (by law). The phrase 'run of the mill' indicates that a lack of understanding of the subject area. We have many area in Wikipedia that are tedious to many- but we just don't try editibng there. ClemRutter (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is one of the only high schools in South Lanarkshire to not have it’s own page. The sources include it’s website, South Lanarkshire's website and the Daily Record. If you look at other high school pages their only sources are from their website, their council's website or the Daily Record. The school is notable, its page is just (like someone wrote above) undeveloped. Sahaib (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not relieve similar articles from notability guidelines; that other pages also lack notability is not a reason to keep. Three of the sourced are not WP:IS and cannot establish notability. The remaining three are about a construction project (practically every school has construction), an article about a student that went to the school that got into Oxford (notability is not inherited, does not address the subject directly and in depth per WP:SIGCOV), and an article about a Career Week event. This is a good school, but that isn't a criteria for an article.   // Timothy :: talk  14:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources are reliable; the school's website is not independent but others are. Some of coverage looks insignificant, but unlike many articles in Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) it isn't about something only established recently, so it's likely that most coverage is not online. Practically every building is designed and constructed, so does that mean coverage of these is not significant? If there is coverage it's probably a significant building - schools are not only an "organisation, corporation, or product". Peter James (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of reliable sourcing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes the school exists, yes the references support what is in the article. But the hurdle here is WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG and there is nothing to make this school any more notable then most of the schools of the world. While the keep arguments are nice, they do not show that the school meets Wikipedia notability requirements. Jeepday (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply : There is nothing in the WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG that says that a school has to be more notable than any other. Wikipedia uses the word notable to refer the quality of its reference not in the way it is used in conversation- it doesn't have to be famous, or have notoriety. Following each of those guidelines (which are shortcuts to the same document), you are taken to WP:GNG which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list".ClemRutter (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply @ClemRutter: per WP:ORG "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." it would seem that you believe the coverage is not trivial, and that is fine. That is why we have the Afd process, we all express our views on how things apply. When you say "There is nothing in the WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG that says that a school has to be more notable than any other" I think you are missing WP:ORGSIG "No inherent notability" Local papers write about local schools, that is what makes the coverage trivial and non notable in my opinion. You see it differently and that is fine. Jeepday (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply @Jeepday:. Local papers write about local schools, that coverage trivial is normally trivial. I have no time for concerts or fun runs. A statutory notice of planning application would not be trivial- if the paper employed real reporters and wasn't just an advertising rag, and even then I would expect a fair amount of focused copy. We are not talking about newspapers here. The level of detail needed to fulfil WP:GNG is far lower than that needed to justify a reference. WP:ORGIN is remarkably broad! The existence of government funding guarentees that published reports by a third party exist. But you mention the two part WP:ORGSIG paragraph beneath it.

      No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists

      It has received significant coverage from Lanarkshire, and in the published inspectors reports- it is not relying on a presumption that it should by considered notable because the school on the other side of the valley was notable.

      "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it. , has a corollary No matter how "unimportant" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should be entitled to a stand-alone article in Wikipedia when reliable sources independent of the organization that give significant coverage to it have been found.

      I am genuinely pleased that you got back to us here as it has directed me to the ambiguous text. There are many stubs on schools still to be improved- and four more Lanarkshire schools articles to be started. As for the locality, it is 600 kms from me and I am not likely ever to visit it. Is over the border (different legal system and customs) and I try to keep my editing more local. ClemRutter (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • Coverage found via newspapers.com is a reason to keep articles about similarly notable American topics, and this is usually local - more could be found if the UK had a National Digital Newspaper Program. Peter James (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In England the schools database is GIAS and though I haven't tried it I believe education.gov.scot/parentzone/find-a-school does the same job.ClemRutter (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on independent coverage: We look for independent coverage because when a publisher chooses to cover a topic they have no connection to it suggests the subject is notable. When a government agency produces a report that they must produce for every school they are not independently choosing to report on any particular school. Therefore it is not an indication of notability. Gab4gab (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The meaning of independent is not having a conflict of interest, for example in promoting it. Similar coverage is enough - places recognised in censuses for example. Peter James (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply @Peter James:.: There can be coverage that appears to be independent but because it is indiscriminate it tells us nothing about the notability of what it covers.

If Bass Player Magazine includes coverage of a particular bass player that can be helpful to that players notability. In theory the magazine independently chooses who to cover and does not attempt to cover every bass player. They choose to cover noteworthy subjects.

Suppose a government agency provides coverage of particular school by producing a report. That could be helpful to that schools' notability if the agency freely selects significant schools to report on. However, if the agency is required to produce reports for all schools in their territory, they don't have the independence to select their subjects. In that case the report is not helpful to notability because the publisher indiscriminately covered all schools.

Similarly, suppose a government agency produces a yearly report on every registered charity. The report for each charity is simply evidence that it is a registered charity. It says nothing about that charity's notability.

There is some discussion of indiscriminate sources at WP:INDEPENDENT.

Notability of places recognised in censuses is an example of topics covered in the gazetteer aspect of Wikipedia. We do not generally consider school under geographic features guidelines although school buildings can be notable under that criteria. Gab4gab (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as an aside. Doesn't WP:INDEPENDENT give an example of independent and reports

Examples of independent and non-independent sources for some common subjects

You're writing about…	Independent	Non-independent
a business	News media, government agency	Owner, employees, corporate website or press release, sales brochure, competitor's website

. Using a rule of thumb, five hundred students at 5000UKP a child (250 000) +100 000 block grant, on the revenue account plus the recent capital expenditure this is a very sizable business too. ClemRutter (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that table is there, followed by the section on 'Relationship to notability' which says this: "Some sources, while apparently independent, are indiscriminate sources. For example, a travel guide might attempt to provide a review for every single point of interest, restaurant, or hotel in a given area." and this: "If a subject, such as a local business, is only mentioned in indiscriminate independent sources, then it does not qualify for a separate article on Wikipedia, but may be mentioned briefly in related articles (e.g., the local business may be mentioned in the article about the town where it is located)." It's an explanatory supplement that I find helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: With ATD of Merge to town or county article (see below). Fails ORG and GNG. Just a non-notable school. www.educationbase.co.uk, is NOT independent. Aside from flowery words the "ABOUT US" link was written by the school and contains words like "Although we" and "our pupils". Another source is about a high-jacked Facebook page, a link to the student handbook, a "Parent-and-Pupil-Booklet", and a South Lanarkshire Council published "Follow-through report". One Daily Record reports on a Hamilton Advertiser’s reporter and photographer visiting the school for career day. Another is a report on "elections of school captains and vice captains". These sources, while acceptable for article content, do not advance notability. If this were true then common news reporting types of sources would mean that every high school, over 24,000 in the U.S., over 300 in Scotland, over 4,000 in England, almost 14,000 in China, and an untold number the world over, would qualify for an article. If this is not the actual intent it would be the unintended consequence. Otr500 (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The process here is to decide whether there is enough material to justify the inclusion of the article. This is Scotland, which has a different legal and education system. You are right about several of the trivial sources you mention, the article is a stub and poor, facebook reference would need to go to get it beyond a start. I don´t know where the reference to www.educationbase.co.uk comes from- certainly not been used here to show WP:GNG and not in the article.

You are wrong about the South Lanarkshire "Follow-through report" reference. If you read it carefully you will see it is a response to a HMI report that is no longer on line. This is sufficient for WP:GNG. It shows that the business has been the subject to a national report. The term "Follow-through report" is the legal term, and requirement. I share your despair about roving photographers, but to use this evidence we would need 'substantial coverage'. We do have 4000 + notable schools in the UK- that is a lot of work. Love to see you join in and turn this stub in to a well written B or better.ClemRutter (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: Greetings. The follow-through report is a primary source that does not advance notability. I didn't see a "HMI report". I would like to see lots of articles "all about Scotland". The aggregate of the multiple sources need to provide reliable as well as significant and independent coverage for a stand alone article. Content does not determine notability. The articles Lesmahagow (town) and Lanarkshire (county) are both start-class that could use an "Education" section so the school could have Wikipedia coverage. In our quest to make Wikipedia the "largest encyclopedia in history" we don't need to lose sight of the fact that coverage in another article does not mean a subject is not notable (especially locally or regionally) just possibly not notable enough for a stand alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have added merge as an WP:ATD per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that others and the closer might consider. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  More than 200 high schools in Connecticut already have articles; that's a state with just over 1% of the U.S. population. American high school articles are usually kept at AFD. It's interesting to look at the articles created by some of the editors who support deletion here - stubs with less content and fewer sources than here, but about American topics. I don't know if that is relevant to why this is at AFD - the nominator is a sockpuppet and I don't know what their purpose is yet - but it looks like different standards are being applied. Peter James (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. @Otr500: I think we are seeing the Follow up report] through different spectacles. It is a proud achievement of the UK government, that organisations are required to publish policies and third party reports on themselves on their websites. Beneficial but awkward for Wikipedia as a school website and its webaddress may just be 'notice board' where our WP:RS are stored. *"What maintained schools must publish online". GOV.UK. Retrieved 6 October 2020. However, the school and council are separate legal bodies.

On the first page of Follow up document we have the statement:

BackgroundLesmahagow High School was inspected by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIe) in November 2009. Following the publication of the report in January 2010 the Head Teacher and staff prepared an action plan to address the main recommendations.The school is part of the Lesmahagow Learning Community within Clydesdale. The Head of Education (Clydesdale) reviewed progress with the Action Plan and submitted an evaluation of the school’s progress in response to the HMIe inspection report.

It is clear that a report on the school has been published- WP:N. We are left with a dilemma, WP:N states.

Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.

WP:NPOSSIBLE Also,

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

At this moment we can prove that the "significant coverage" had existed but due our location and the distance in time we cannot access it on line.

I do think that Wikipedia is a little behind reality. We are lead by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and it is interesting to speculate how fare the Follow up document can be used in its own right. I conclude it can. This is the publication of the comment (tertiary) on the review (secondary) of a primary source. Here is the policy quote:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

Yes all this is considered before we embark on a new article- this one is particularly interesting as it is in Scotland and most of our experience is in England. There are 17 secondary schools in South Lanarkshire in their learning communities so please do get more deeply involved so we can head off this discussions in future. Best wishes for a safe corvid free future. ClemRutter (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete reading through all the discussion and looking over the sourcing it appears that this school lacks the multiple in-depth reliable independent sources it needs to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG. As they all seem to either trivial or connected to the school somehow. Which doesn't cut it for the standards of notability. That said if someone is able to provide three good, independent, in-depth, reliable sources I will be more then willing to change my vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse to request: Roy Smiths three is useful at times- but there are 17 references here already, without adding more. I have written paragraphs on the significance of HMI Reports, and Follow up Reports- principally for editor not familiar with the UK system where the school is an independent legal identity. There is nothing in policy that says 3 references are needed- but with the help of the Daily Record we have the human interest story that would make a great DYK hookm to add to the HMI and the Follow up report. Bingo. And that does make the three. Of course we have avoided looking for more material on the school website which I would be reticent to use directly. Here on our page we have sources but not a lot of article to hang them onto. Content provision is the priority. ClemRutter (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - enough notable coverage for a school, in my opinion. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to ClemRutter's WP:HEY additions, including Daily Record (Scotland) articles and the HMI "Follow-through report - Lesmahagow High School", a resource that is secondary, not primary. It is required by the Scottish Qualifications Authority, part of Scotland's highly regarded universal public education system, different from those in the other countries of the United Kingdom. Such reports by national oversight agencies are significnt, substantial "reliable, independent, and secondary sources".Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is an organization that administrators exams to students in any way independent of the institutions who's students it's administering the exams to? Especially since both are ran by the Scottish government. Scottish Qualifications Authority isn't a private oversight organization or anything. It's ran and payed for by the same people that run and pay for the schools. The Scottish government. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Lanarkshire council's education authority is not run by the Scottish government. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Adamant1: You are about 20% correct in your description of the SQA as "an organization that administrators exams to students". I'm reminded of Pope's admonishment, "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; / Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring." The Education (Scotland) Act 1996 mandates accreditation of education and training establishments as one of SQA's 5 general functions. SQA's website description of the Accreditation Committee notes members are "from industry and training providers independent of SQA Accreditation". Further, SQA Accreditation has been certified by Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance. Accreditors of Scottish schools function the same way external auditors of business corporations function: they provide unvarnished assessments of an institution from an independent point of view. The HMIe reports they produce are reliable, secondary sources. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - although after doing quite a bit of editing on this, then looking back to the original edits and seeing what a premature move of content into article space took place, I can see why the article was nominated. The mentions of Daily Record (Scotland) articles as sources are not strictly correct- The Daily Record website hosts content from multiple local papers- at least two of the references used in this article appear to be from the Hamilton Advertiser. But this coverage does appear to go beyond trivial mention and thus establish that the subject meets the relatively low bar of significance accepted for the schools, via WP:ORG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it Interesting you say that about the Scottish Daily Record. I guess I did not look at the sources clearly enough. However, at least one source from that newspaper seems to be at the national level, meaning that it may meet WP:AUD. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I waited until now to cast my !vote. There have been tremendous improvements to the article since this article was first nominated for deletion. I do not think this article would have been nominated if the article was published in this state. The sources in Scottish Daily Record alone seem to be enough for the article to satisfy WP:GNG. However, most of the other sources do not, because they are not independent (the Facebook source is local) or reliable (the demolition page looks self-published). I'm unsure as to whether the HMI report is independent though. Regardless, this school is notable enough for inclusion IMO, but barely. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added a bit more to the article. There is certainly content and sources there which I would remove as run of the mill, but that does not require deletion of the article. I agree that the HMI Inspection report is an independent, reliable and significant source. We don't have it referenced directly but the action plan shows that it exists. The local history book, At the Crossroads of Time, has some decent coverage. I think that there are very likely to be print sources which cover the school in some detail. There is a lot we don't know from online sources - for instance, its date of establishment (it could be a development of to the eighteeth-century school referenced here in an article about William Smellie (obstetrician)); but it's a school of importance to the community over a long period of time, and with at least four notable ex-pupils, so I think WP:NPOSSIBLE applies. I did find some early twentieth-c local newspaper reports of the appointment of headteachers of the school, which I think is not trivial in the way that fun runs would be - I haven't added links to those because, without a clearer timeline of the history of the school, I think throwing in a ref to eg the appointment of a head in 1918 would just be confusing. Tacyarg (talk) 20:57, 4 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.