Talk:St Benet Biscop Catholic Academy

I deleted the teachers section, along with other sections detailing personal information. I don't think it's appropriate to include this information here. Blueboy 96 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle.png

The image File:Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only Catholic high school in the county?

"It is the only Catholic high school in the county."

The document below lists the titles of Roman Catholic schools in Northumberland.

http://www.mickley.plus.com/pdf/Draft%20Reorganisation%20Plan%202004-2009.pdf

The only Catholic high school in the county?

"It is the only Catholic high school in the county."

The document below lists the titles of Roman Catholic schools in Northumberland.

http://www.mickley.plus.com/pdf/Draft%20Reorganisation%20Plan%202004-2009.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.221.205 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion to an article with a 'likely' conflict of interest

This page should not be speedily deleted because... too much detail has been presented without any reputable sources as aforementioned by numerous users. This has remained the same for several years with first notice of the conflict being noted in 2014. The few cited sources are for government websites and a website for an organization affiliated with the school. Furthermore, the article is understandably written like an advertisement, almost self-promoting the school as a neutral place where only good derives giving a one sided presentation & overview, like a brochure. --Spoony648 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is not appropriate here. Speedy deletion is generally only used on new articles. Deletion is not about the article at hand, it is about the subject of the article. And this is undeniably a notable subject.

That being said, this article was a steaming pile of poo. It easily was the most promo school article I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of really promo school articles. Notice I said was. I've stubbed this unsoured article back to just the most basic information.

So, now we need an article here. Keep in mind that this is NOT the school's page on Wikipedia; this article is not in any way FOR the school; Promotional editing is prohibited by pillar policy; this is not social media. There are guidelines for school articles. And, most importantly, an encyclopedia article is made up of information paraphrased from reliable published sources. Editor's knowledge or opinions are not relevant here. This isn't the place to write an essay.

I've not much experience on British schools, so I'm going to ping my co-coordinators on the school project here for help: Kudpung, ClemRutter. John from Idegon (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

www.st-benetbiscop.org.uk/parent-information/policies is a good place to start. What ever else they do- maintaining a user-friendly website is low on their priority list. Of course no secondary school article should be deleted as they are all by definition notable. I go to the primary source to establish the facts and the framework, and then google for secondary WP:RS sources to establish weighting before I put pen to paper.

Primary sources- www.st-benetbiscop.org.uk/about-us/catholic-ethos-and-values tells us a lot. It even references the origin of the pupils in Genesis 1 27 (though the reference does not specifically refer to Northumberland).

Secondary sources-Google Ofsted St Benet Biscop- this leads to Good Schools Guide and this gives us Ofsted Site for URN 141814. Having got this far- I can confirm that @John from Idegon: was right to delete almost all of the fluff. This was a heavily vandalised article. It is notable in four senses: its unique name, a failing MAT school, a school that attempted to convert from a first/middle/high to a primary/secondary system, the only RC school in the county. I think the COI is not really relevant- it is lucky it attracted any interest!

The Ofsted report is a disappointment- it is two years out of date which has lead to errors in our article but it helps to put into context the feeling that kids have turned off as they feel they have been messed about. www.schoolguide.co.uk gives stats and class profile.

I will leave it at that point. Hope that is helpful.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that is has been cleaned up now, should the notice that the article is written like an advertisement be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoony648 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC) Done ClemRutter (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]