Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McAdam High School

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McAdam High School

[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 to the critea layout in WP:GNG and also in WP:NSCHOOL has been with notability template since march 2021 also fails to meet WP:SIGCOV 1keyhole (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage to meet WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG Shaws username (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the sources added by Grand'mere Eugene Shaws username . talk . 00:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Available sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG, as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, quick question, Why is this particular school notable and how does it meet WP:GNG? 1keyhole (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Delete - No Reliable Sources Found. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if editors could show some sources, or explain where they looked when they found none.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources on ProQuest, and included quotes from the sources behind paywalls. I have not yet tracked down the exact time frame of the school's alternative title, McAdam Composite High School, but so far I found that name in use from the early 1950s through about 1984. At any rate, this tiny school does meet GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would be great if deletionists would make a cursory effort to find sources before nominating. There's plenty here. — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote you have to actually state reasons why you believe this article meets the requirements. 1keyhole (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there's plenty here" is an argument. Nominating something for deletion without doing any cursory search for sources is just lazy and wasting people's time. — Chris Capoccia 💬 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did make an effort and I stand by submitting this article for deletion. I think an experienced administrator will review the references and agree that most of these references are trivial and some are passing mentions. 1keyhole (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a high school in Canada that has been around awhile. Not surprisingly there turn out to be plenty of sources. 1keyhole, it's not the state of the article that determines if it is notable and should be kept, it's whether sources WP:NEXIST. — Grand'mere Eugene has done a great job of demonstrating that they do. 1keyhole, a quick Google search is often insufficient, especially with subjects that are old enough to predate the internet that have had some name changes. Sources do not have to be online, and even when they are online, they are often out of reach of the search engine. A good WP:BEFORE investigation can be hard, but not doing it thoroughly can waste a lot of time for a lot of people. Jacona (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems high schools in Canada almost always turn out to be notable because sources exist whether or not they've been added in the article. This article had been short of them, but hey!, they are in it now. A thorough before could have saved us all some time here. This article has the sustained significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and therefore should be kept. Jacona (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the recent WP:HEY effort. Scorpions1325 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2024 (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.