Talk:Darton Academy

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Darton Academy is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I tried to clean up this article, but someone "local" to the school reverted me. I've tried again with a minimalist approach: taggig for cleanup and style and putting the start and end into proper Wikipedia style. KevinCuddeback 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reverted the anonymous edits. Please remember that Wikipedia entries must be encyclopedic. KevinCuddeback 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Stub class, almost a start class, just needs a bit more information. But a solid stub. Some interesting bits of information there, but still worth a Low. Twenty Years 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues re Ofsted inspection

I am starting a discussion here about whether the name of the former head teacher should be included in connection with the poor performance in previous reports. While the claims are now adequately sourced, The BLP policy, in particular, WP:NPF and WP:BLPNAME are relavent here. It is my opinion that this person should not be mentioned in this context, as we must err on the side of privacy. Quasihuman (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the same reservations for the same reason. Though sourced, from the outset it's appeared to be a way to single out non-notables for alternately negative and positive assessment. Unnecessary. 99.184.134.27 (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there are no dissenting voices, I have removed the names again. Quasihuman (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following re-addition of the irrelevant content, with its subtext that someone has a personal agenda, I've reverted and reported this to WP:BLP noticeboard. 64.222.237.179 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also begun a sockpuppetry case here about the two SPAs doing this. Quasihuman | Talk 22:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just adding my support to this consensus position regarding not including these names and WP:BLPNAME and WP:NPF. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]