Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldersley High School (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aldersley High School[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No significant coverage. Schools are supposed to proof their notability, they are not automatically notable, as per this 2017 RFC The Banner talk 12:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references in the article are subpar and the other stuff I could find was a few name drops in a couple of school directories. Plus brief mentions in articles about other things. For instance the principle being banned from the school and the usual trivial COVID related news that most schools have right now. I don't think any of that is enough for this to be notable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough sources to satisfy GNG, as with any other secondary school in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Schools are not notable just because they exist. The Banner talk 09:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not what I said, I believe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded this article and feels it more than meets GNG standards. -- Bleaney (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 11 sources of which two government listings, four times the own website, two links to a pages about a disgraced vice principal (but not about the school), one passing mention (opposite of ...). I am in doubt about the source about cycling. Only the minimal source 9 about the growing school might be worth something but is on its own not enough to confer notability. The Banner talk 09:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added an additional reference. It is also likely the school has received coverage in local and print press that is no longer accessible online. NemesisAT (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I have removed the double text and added the source to the already existing text and sources. One extra source for the same fact really enhances the notability (not, but okay). The Banner talk 22:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm unsure why you removed the text I added. The expansion in 2013/14 was a different project to whatever happened in 2019. NemesisAT (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as sources meet the GNGJackattack1597 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 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.