Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert-Schweitzer-Gymnasium Gundelfingen

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. None of the sourcing presented to me shows me this subject meets WP:GNG. Sourcing appears to be primarily localized and often passing. Regional paper is one thing, but, it seems to be the only paper writing about the school. I'm siding with the !deletes. Missvain (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert-Schweitzer-Gymnasium Gundelfingen

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

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL as secondary schools are no longer given auto notability (see this RFC) Was deproded with the explanation "European secondary schools are generally notable". There is no policy that I am aware of that makes European schools more notable than schools elsewhere. Rusf10 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deprod as for GNG you have to prove potential coverage in written sources, using the Wikipedia definition of 'notable'. As a school in the EU, and more particularly Germany, funding depends on the school publishing detailed reports and accounts. They are scrutinised by the press and occur with an appraisal by officers and appear in council minute. This is the strong secondary source we require. "European secondary schools are generally notable". There is no policy however it is a statement of fact. Now finding it on line or on paper can be a nightmare. ClemRutter (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With one Google, in this case there are parallel references: The Gymnasium helpfully publishes its history:"ASG | Gundelfingen". www.asg-gundelfingen.de. Retrieved 15 May 2021.. (This is a primary source with links). In 2016 there are three references to articles in the Badische-Zeitung: here is one involving regional politicians and pupils:Zeitung, Badische. "Sich für eigene Interessen einsetzen - Gundelfingen - Badische Zeitung". www.badische-zeitung.de (in German). Retrieved 15 May 2021..

The article is a stub and inaccurate and needs to be rewritten. It opened in 1973, the stub was created in 2007. ClemRutter (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me. You're using the school's own website (see WP:INDEPENDENT) and a local newspaper article (see WP:AUD) to establish notability. With those two sources, we're nowhere near passing WP:GNG or WP:ORG.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do a little research- Badische Zeitung is a major regional paper. Please read my comments thoroughly- and follow the references I give you and note when I label something primary. I bolded the word three and gave the full reference to one. I am tempted to do a little more googling, to show you what I mean about local government references - the first one to pop up is "Neue Fachräume ASG Gundelfingen - Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald". www.breisgau-hochschwarzwald.de. Retrieved 15 May 2021. which gives me verification of the location Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, but alone is a GNG valid reference. So are you prepared to put some work in to make this well referenced stub into an article that follows WP:SCH/AG? All it takes is time! ClemRutter (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure there are a few sources that confirm the school exists. Wikipedia isn't simply an encyclopedia of verifiable subjects though. It's one of notable subjects. In this particular case all that exits is a few trivial, primary sources and one that seems on hand to be usable, but isn't enough on it's own without other non-primary, in-depth sources to back it up. So at this point there's nothing to make this notable. I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep if someone can come up with WP:THREE (or really two at this point}} usable sources though. Just an FYI, that doesn't mean ones from the government as they aren't independent from the subject of the article IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources available to meet WP:GNG, as with most other secondary schools in Europe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 Hi. Good to see you on board- that link to WP:THREE is really useful. Firstly can I remind everyone- this is not my article, it is appalling and doesn't even start to address the points in WP:WPSCH/AG- I patrol this list on behalf of WP Schools, and jump in when I see broad egregious generalisations and misapprehensions. It certainly is not my role to rewrite the article, though in this case it is an interesting and easy task. Under lock down I am suffering from a severe attack of Wanderlust. So the issue in hand. This has been rehearsed many times before: I can see three problems-

firstly 'notable' has two meanings: ' registered in a form we can verify ' and then ' exceptional or different '. The first is provable while the second is totally subjective. WP:N describes the former use. Section WP:NRV explains sigcoverage in terms of description or recognition. There are references to examining what the article could become, not just its existing state.
Secondly. The assumption that 'government' is one thing. Too simple it is multilayered. In the German context the Gemeinde are independent of the Kreis, which are independent of the Lande, which are independent of the country. One building may be funded as a partnership of two or more layers, Most funding that comes from the top, is channeled through the Kreis- which acts as a postbox and may be independently highly critical of the project.
Thirdly we don't have a watertight definition of a school. To some it is building, to some it is a history, to some it is a cost-centre, and to some it a list of sports fixtures and then again it is about the pedagogy and the educational outcomes.

Looking again at the definitions. WP:AUD makes it clear that regional newspapers are encouraged.

WP:ORG only applies to profit making schools. WP:ORG is a part of the WP:N page and has been much discussed and viewed in it entirity offers a few surprises. WP:WPSCHOOL

Going back to the WP:THREE challenge. As I have said there is the primary source, and the one I have given

Then school visit to the Holocaust Memorial

Hosting Syrian Refugee children

School protest at ending of Refugee Hosting

Fundraising concerts

[This pdf https://www.breisgau-hochschwarzwald.de/pb/site/Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald/get/params_E-1908479547_Dattachment/956309/Infobrosch%C3%BCre%20Allgemeinbildende%20Gymnasien%20im%20Landkreis%2003.2015.pdf] Kreis also describe the Lande.

And an article about the Kreis with a significant description of the Gymnasium [https://doczz.net/doc/5785187/infobrosch%C3%BCre-gymnasien-im-landkreis Gymnasium in the Kreis.

I leave it there tonight, but this are does need to be properly documented. Have you any thoughts? As for this stub, I am inclined to encourage a new article on the Allgemeine Gymnasium in Breisgau, to act as container, and create six new redirects to that article, one for each of Gymnasiums. Then turn this into a redirect. We probably need a disamb page too, as there are lots of Albert-Schweitzer-Gymnasium around. Apologies for the spelling errors- as German mutates and capitalises all nouns- it is a compromise- my fingers will type in one language while my head remains in the other. ClemRutter (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts on my end, to me a large part of WP:THREE that they should be quality sources and just trivial cruft. There is also the requirement that any source address the subject directly and in-depth. Which I think goes along with the whole "quality over quantity" thing that I think is the point in WP:THREE.

So, given that, I don't think things like articles about "the school" visiting a holocaust memorial really cuts it. Especially in this case because despite the name of the article (which is massively miss-leading), it was only eleventh graders and they did an online tour. Plus the whole second half the article is about life Jews after WW2. Which really isn't about the school. I'd say maybe it would pass with better sources if the article was fully about the school, the whole school actually went, and it wasn't just a run of the mill online tour that literally anyone of us could do right now on our computers. Ultimately though, what's notable about a class visiting a website of a museum? Yes, I'm aware there's the whole "you write seminar papers and finally take an oral exam, which is counted towards the Abitur exam", but students doing exams on what they learn is extremely WP:MILL. I don't think the other sources you provided are any better. School fundraise concerts.

Your idea about the Gymnasium and redirecting things sounds somewhat solid though. I'm usually fine with any alternative to deletion as long as someone is willing to do it and it's not just maintaining the status quo. In this case, I don't think an article about school fundraising drives or some students visiting a website would really cut it. That goes for however you want to define the term "school." --Adamant1 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have to stay on focus here. The test is whether the sources exist- were they substantial. Arguing about quality is for a GAN. All your concerns can be exercised there! ClemRutter (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are substantial or not has to do with quality does it not? Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not pass WP:SCHOOL nor WP:GNG, no RS and no real content for an article here. --hroest 19:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an institution, article proposes no grounds for notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alexandermcnabb thanks for coming on board- but what a palaver. We have two schools on the same site on the outskirts Freiburg im Breisgau both of which are inherently interesting, and people are getting heavy without understanding the area or the references and the experiments being made. As I have probably said elsewhere, when I am doing one of these AFD reviews I try to resist the temptation of adding to or writing the article in question.

To try and lighten the mood I googled ' Cuckoo Clocks in Titisee ' (15 mile up the road) then 'Cuckoo Clocks in Grundelfinger' . That gave many interesting descriptions and a map reference (48°02′28″N 7°52′16″E / 48.04106°N 7.87110°E)showing the joint campus with Gemeinschaftscule Gundelfingen- but it is more than that, en:Gemeinschaftsschule hasn't been written de:Gemeinschaftsschule explains the relationship between the GMS and the GYM, a Baden-Würtemburg peculiarity. In Manchester terms it probably is an extended elementary school, with selection at several ages. Both schools need an article. now a change of terms for Google and there are loads more badische-zeitung references on the rebuild of the Gundelfinger Schulzentrum.

Much though Titisee and the Schwarzwald are physically lovely, a visit to a Holocaust Museum with a class of kids- is a notable potentially brave act. ClemRutter (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is visiting a website as part of a school assignment, even if it's about the holocaust, at all "potentially brave" or even notable? I've heard some pretty hyperbolic excuses to keep articles, but that one really tops them. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get a barnstar for that? I'd love to meet up and share a few beers. There are certain things that I won't put on paper- but will discuss in person. I guess you have to know the location. I guess you have had to organised school exchanges and have some knowledge of teenage and parental sensitivities in the region. Still we have moved on and the new searches on the new keywords have produced load of stuff on the schulzentrum- and a possible rename. We now have stuff on the school architect- and how they organise their Mittteler Reife and Abitur etc. But focus on the task -time for a judgement to be made- I've put the beer in the fridge.ClemRutter (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll have to take your word for it since I'm not that up on the culture of German schools. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Non notable institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Kolma8 (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.