Talk:Rogiet Primary School

Contested deletion Rogiet Primary School

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... the information was typed by the Head Teacher and is factual information about the school and surrounding areas. It is not self-promoting or advertising. It is the same text that appears in the school prospectus and school website. None of the information is copyrighted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogiet Primary (talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 February 2012‎

The information is clearly a duplicate, and is inevitably copyrighted. If (as I expect is the case) there is permission to use this content, then that's a different situation. This is handled on Wikipedia through the WP:OTRS process - the copyright holder of the original just needs to email in their permission.

Incidentally, if I can be useful at all, just drop me a line - I'm one of your neighbours. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Normal practice, in my experience, is for material on junior schools to be included on the pages of their towns or villages, but not to have their own articles unless they are exceptionally notable in some way. See WP:NGO - "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead." This material (edited so as to avoid copyright issues) would be much better placed, and more likely to be retained, at the article on Rogiet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Although primary schools aren't generally notable, I think it would be quite easy to show notability in Rogiet's case. This would be because of the building, more than any educational reason. It's a new building of an unusually high quality, particularly for its environmental aspect. As it was only built a couple of years ago, this has also left a larger web footprint than earlier schools. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If the external sources are there (I haven't checked), fine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

...and in classic wiki-fashion, this new user has just been slapped with a block template. We don't warn people beforehand that "multi-user" usernames aren't permitted, but we're sure great at being heavy-handed about driving them away afterwards. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that - I have removed the block. We will discuss what to do now. Do remember that you can ask the admin to change their mind or ask another admin to assist. Victuallers (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So if an admin is heavy-handed at blocking editors, I should tell them to stop? Right... 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Some admins are human, I've heard. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Admins are not "clever" or "special" - they are just ordinary people who have been trusted with more dangerous tools. They (I) can be outvoted by consensus just like anyone else.... and like us all they can make a spelin error or just be too quick at making a judgement Victuallers (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)