Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeugland Hoërskool (2nd nomination)

Jeugland Hoërskool

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jeugland Hoërskool (2nd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Jeugland Hoërskool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This was nominated for deletion back in 2014 due to lacking any refences, which it still doesn't have (in-depth or otherwise) and was keep "because SCHOOLOUTCOMES." SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a valid keep reason now though. Since it has been over turned per the RfC about it (I think this is a good example of why). So, this should be deleted due to failing both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Since it lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources for it to be notable. I couldn't find any when I looked either (and no I won't list exactly where I looked, what specific keyboard buttons I pressed to do the search, or anything else along those lines). --Adamant1 (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete we need some actual 3rd-party sources to justify an article on a secondary school, not just internal sourcing to an organization itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• I note that the location of this school was wrongly moved a few kilometres in this edit, and more importantly when it comes to searching, it is actually called "Hoërskool Jeugland", not "Jeugland Hoërskool":

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep' Passes WP:GNG. Coverage [1] and [2]. [3] is just a listing of schools in the area but it's notable enough to note, and [4] is brief but not bad. Also [5] isn't great but reported sports results is one marker of notability so including it. There are many more results, especially directory listings, discussions with school alumni, and a video with alleged bullying from the school. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Where do the guidelines say anywhere that reporting of sports results is a marker of notability? Also, how do the first and second sources, which are just pictures with a caption, meet WP:GNG in any way like your claiming they do? BTW, just an FYI the guidelines are pretty clear that multiple references from the same outlet only count as one source because they have to be journalistically (and otherwise) independent from each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Someone - maybe Bearian? - has set out their own standards that schools must pass in order to get past WP:GNG. You're right the first two sources are brief, but I think there's plenty on which a neutral standalone article can be written. SportingFlyer T·C 14:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that's who it is. I semi-agree with that for like a University maybe. I don't think it works if your talking about like a high-school football teams scores being in the local or even regional newspaper. At least where I'm from all high school sports gets that kind of coverage. For something to be notable it has to be unique and not applicable to every other thing in it's "category." Like were not going to have an article about a school just because it has walls. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly not true that for something to be notable it has to be unique. Such a rule would turn us into the Guinness Book of Records rather than an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think the whole "trivial" thing exists then or things like "changes in share or bond prices" or "product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance" not counting toward notability even though they sometimes get national or regional news coverage? Rarely if ever is something like "hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel" notable (except in extremely rare cases) and 100% it's not because every company hires and fires people. Those are already things we don't include and in No way does not having articles on companies full of tables of everyone the company has hired and fired turn Wikipedia into the Guinness Book of Records. Nor does not listing every single, or any, products a company has released. It's ridiculous to claim it otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please think before you write. Nothing there says that a company has to be unique, let alone a school, which, per WP:NSCHOOL which is part of WP:ORG, only has to pass the WP:GNG, not necessarily WP:ORG. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd love to know how you translated "changes in share or bond prices" to me saying "a company has to be unique." --Adamant1 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You very clearly said "for something to be notable it has to be unique". They were your words, not mine. It's impossible to hold a civilised discussion about anything when you blatantly deny the obvious evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)