Talk:Great Walstead School

Merge

I can find no evidence of notability for this primary school or any reason not to follow the usual practise of covering primary schools in the local settlement article.--Charles (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is prep school not a primary school. The article is lacking in references but there will no doubt be multiple reliable sources available to improve the article. What sources have you checked to date? What makes you assume that such sources will not be available? Dahliarose (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. I already declined it once, but the tag has been reinstated. This is not a primary school and cannot be treated as such. These schools are sometimes hard to reference, but references can be found with diligence. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not a primary school it is a primary/middle school and middle schools are treated much the same as primaries regarding stand alone articles. Unless significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is quickly provided there is no reason to keep this article.--Charles (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't one of those either. It is a private school, almost certainly unique to the UK, part of the independent schools system. Prep schools are often but not always members of the IAPS. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case the type of school has no relevance to whether or not the school merits a standalone article. That is determined by the availability of sources. The reasons suggested for the proposed merge therefore appear to be invalid. Dahliarose (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Time would be far better spent by all of us finding the references to this and the other articles that have been similarly flagged. I've taken a few on, others, including the editor who wants it flagged for merging, really might join in and improve the article(s) rather than argue about process. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge, per Dahliarose & Fiddle Faddle. Moonraker (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning advertorial, adding citations

The article is still a bit of an advert though I've stripped out the biggest offending text sections. It needs more pruning. Further references are required. Two of those I found are probably not what the school would have wished to have remembered. Nonetheless both are major national papers.

WHat the article probably needs is to be stripped back to a stub and rebuilt with citations as one edits. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I'm not sure that the controversial story necessary needs to cited. The school previously had a different name and there are a number of hits for Kilvinton Hall including this wonderful pic of the old school dorm http://www.enfieldsociety.org.uk/photographs/displayimage.php?album=22&pid=865. The building has now been demolished but there appear to be references to it in various local history books, so there seem to be quite a few other sources available. 19:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings for or against the controversy. I was simply looking for WP:RS stuff. Do go in and cite stuff (maybe you have already, I haven't looked). I don't have time to do more than touch the surface on some of the articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with this article. I will do more when I have some more free time. I just wanted to make sure that anyone working on this article is aware of the older name of the school. With two names to search for, there will be many more references to be found! Dahliarose (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Pole-Carew

The gentleman is notable. He just has not yet had an article written about him. this search shows a little about him. Rather than simply removing a link because it is red, why not write the article? The man is a notorious UNion Buster and has other claims to fame. Follow up the search and see. Removing cited stuff is really not cricket. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article, albeit a stub, is now created. The man was mentioned in Hansard, and employed by Murdoch as a trade union buster. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BURDEN the onus is on the person who adds material to reference it.--Charles (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the editor did provide a reference, and he subsequently took the initiative to create a new well-sourced article, for which he should be commended. It is not very helpful to remove cited material. Dahliarose (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came very close to issuing a warning for vandalism. It looked like a drive by deletion to me. I was very sweet and assumed good faith, but I do find that is sometimes hard to maintain. Even so I keep smiling. WP:BURDEN was fulfilled, totally fulfilled. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

An IP editor has, quite reasonably, raised by implication that the section on controversy should be examined in order to achieve consensus on whether the section and incident are relevant to the article on the school and should remain or be removed. I am raising this in a wholly neutral manner in order to seek to establish that consensus. I have no interest to declare in the school. It is on my watchlist, but for entirely different reasons. I reverted a removal of that section as did another editor. The subsequent discussions with the IP editor elsewhere, while not consensus building for or against the section, have led me to conclude that this discussion, here, on the article's talk page, can be used to seek to resolve the matter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I recognise that this is a stain on the school, verified in reliable sources. Equally I consider this to be a passing incident of no great importance in its history. Rather it is a stain on the ex staff member concerned. I have considered the matter and will not oppose consensus for removal nor for retention. I simply insist that there be consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think having a teacher of 20 years service arrested on the premises can be said to have no relevance to the school. Leaving it out would look like a whitewash job. Organisations have to accept that not only the good news is going to be included in articles. Wikipedia is not intended to be the yellow pages for schools. Having said that I do not like "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections which feature problems and give undue weight to them. I would like to see the content moved into the history section. It will be less prominent there anyway.--Charles (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon parke

I was abused by this headmaster during my time spent there in the 70s and on informing the police a year before he died found Sussex police were already building a case against him from numerous people like myself who finally reported him realising the damage he forced on all of us Gedorto (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon parke

pupils from 1970s Gedorto (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could all pupils abused and part of the Sussex police investigation please reply as have been advised we can prosecute him after his death please come forward Gedorto (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]