Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casuarina Senior College (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 22:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casuarina Senior College[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:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. As per earlier AfD, COI is established. Hence, nominated again for a clearer and rational consensus. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Australia. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even a quick Google search brings up relevant sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. What the point is of wp:schooloutcomes is unclear as it in fact double up with the earlier two. The Banner talk 11:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner ^{[citation needed]}. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And what do you mean by that? I guess you will find WP:NEXIST interesting! Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article The Banner talk 11:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @The Banner Prove it. Existence is not enough. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because you don't like the article, does not mean that I have to improve the article. The Banner talk 11:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The Banner You haven't gone through WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I'm sure. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You assume a lot but I was around when that RFC finally came into being. And based on my WP:BEFORE (as mention with my vote) I have no doubt about the notability of this school. The Banner talk 11:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner This ain't a personal discussion. Please confirm your rational debate as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - See my vote... The Banner talk 12:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The Banner OMH, now you are arguing? See the page history. I added some citations that let you people to argue here. Please come up and don't use "Editors should not flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations" as I'm the one who is contributing Wiki with citations. You can check my contribution history for citations I have added. Even at the moment, I am editing pages with citations. Please don't insult my work. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 12:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not insulting your work. But it is very unfriend not to respect arguments of others in an AfD-discussion. The Banner talk 12:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to say that bringing this up again, after the earlier discussion is too soon. Secondly, I still go for Keep. --Bduke (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bduke so you are well aware about WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES huh? Where is your rational debate? _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a discussion and it was no consensus. You should have let that be the result for a while and not bring it up again. If I was still an admin (I gave up being an admin a while back), I would just cancel this new discussion. --Bduke (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke It's not a personal debate. Please confirm your rational debate as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly states that it is among the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please do not WP:BLUDGEON other editors with it, it has no place in this discussion. Jacona (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke for your ref "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 12:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also from schooloutcomes, "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning." Jacona (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. And one does not continue bringing an article to AfD until one gets the result one wants. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The sources in the article and in the previous AfD meet GNG, albeit just that. Sources at Wikipedia Library indicate possible additional coverage. In any case, renominating an article just one week after the closure of the previous AfD, when there has been nothing introduced to change the rationale is a wasste of our time. Jacona (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does seem too soon for re-nomination. Ref bombs in the intro, then nothing for the rest of the article, do not help. Needs a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2022 (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.