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 delete. Sources are not required to be online; old print sources are certainly acceptable; but if no evidence of their existence has been found, "keep" arguments based on the supposition that they do are rather weak. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcote House School[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable primary school. Of the sources cited, only the Tatler piece comes even close to RS sigcov, and it alone isn't enough; search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings, social media accounts, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United Kingdom, and England. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe a 170-year-old prep school isn't notable. And there does seem to be a fair amount about it online. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything online, but if you can, feel free to post it, and if it satisfies ORGCRIT I'm happy to withdraw this. I actually would say that, given the school's age, there's more likely to be offline sources, but those I can't comment on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still want to gamble on the existence of off-line sources, Necrothesp? As far as we know, Wikipedia is based on sources, not guesswork. The Banner talk 14:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is. However, many editors now seem to obsess about online sources and don't realise that offline sources are just as valid. They also don't seem to understand that older instititions are more likely to be covered in print sources than digital sources. My point is that articles shouldn't be deleted simply because editors can't find anything online about them, as many editors seem to propose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Honestly, I'm actually doubtful that the OP is even good-faith. George Huntley (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, that is no argument for keeping the article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
George Huntley indeffed for disruptive editing. Just saying. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as quite clearly fails NSCHOOL and GNG - Google News brings up 4 2-bit mentions [1] and the main Google results page just brings up spammy-listings. If Necrothesp or George Huntley can provide sources to back up their !votes I will happily change my !vote. As an FYI per WP:SCHOOLRFC schools are no longer considered to be inherently notable like they once were. If this school is truly notable - prove it. –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a search brought up no sources that would contribute to a GNG pass. A primary school, no matter how old, not having any reliable coverage discussing it is not at all unusual. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just a primary school. It's a prep school. That would be unusual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sources I found are related, social media or listings. Unsufficient in-depth sources. The Banner talk 14:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Necrothesp. Give an expert at this subject a chance to bring it up to NSCHOOL since this is the first trip to AFD. I can change my opinion to delete after that's been done or we've given some time and it appears that no one will step forward. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, their website, their facebook and various lists of schools are about all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, same reasoning as Royal Autumn Crest --Holyisland (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles are judged based on what can be shown, not based on the hypothetical existence of sources; if that was the standard applied to notability then we would never have cause to delete anything. This article completely and utterly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL (which includes WP:NORG). Newspapers.com does have mentions of the school going back to the 1880s, but they are all non-independent sources like this ad or trivial mentions like this one. I spent way too long going through all of the mentions on Newspapers.com and they are all either routine, trivial things or advertisements. There's no significant coverage to be found there. Yes, WP:ITSOLD. But it's not notable. It doesn't matter that this is the first time it's been brought to AfD; we don't keep articles or give them a free pass on notability just because they've not been previously nominated or discussed. If the concern is that an expert is needed to improve the article, then if one wants to give it a shot they can gather sources that nobody else has been able to find, WP:REFUND the article to their userspace and improve it from there, but it doesn't belong in mainspace and I don't see a good reason to do anything short of deleting it. - Aoidh (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2022 (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.