Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Mark's CofE School, Southampton

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) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St Mark's Church of England School, Southampton[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)

Declined PROD, non-notable secondary school. Despite Necrothesp’s assertion, the notion that secondary schools are inherently notable was abandoned years ago. Repeatedly re-created. Acroterion (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed we do have WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "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." This article is entirely unreferenced, for goodness' sake. How would this place be presumed notable? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'll find, if you actually look, that it is not unreferenced! It has no secondary references, but it is certainly referenced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be the two references you added AFTER my comment above was posted? So what was I to 'actually look' at? Your intent? The future? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be the reference in the infobox that was already there before it was even prodded! Check the history if you don't believe me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A total misrepresentation of what I wrote (which frankly, and sadly, surprises me not at all). Editors need to read WP:PROD before they use it. It is for uncontroversial deletion only. AfD is the forum for any other deletion. The deletion of a secondary school in a western country is never going to be uncontroversial and should not occur without discussion at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable and well-referenced after Necrothesp added 2 good refs to the article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as it skirts by on the multiple RS requirement for notability guideline of orgs. The only source of sustained converse appears to be the local Daily Echo, though, hence my apprehension towards a full keep. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Southern Daily Echo is the main newspaper for the Southampton area. It's reliable. It doesn't have to be big.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My concern is that the only sustained coverage comes from that source, while the other RS I could gluons exclusively covered a single event. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this webpage should be deleted because other pages for example St George Catholic College Southampton share similar notabilities where as they have not been deleted Parabelleum (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, as do most western secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you guys remove the deletion thing on the page because so many people have said keep and I also say we should keep it. Parabelleum (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Parabelleum is now indefinitely blocked for vandalism. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the instructions for participating at AfD. Theyre linked in the box at the top of this page. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References used do not show any notability that passed the WP:GNG or WP:NORG bar. The first school in a single city - Southhampton - that is able to serve from year 4 to year 16 is not notable enough in my opinion. The second reference is just covering about the expansion of the school, and the notability claim on the second reference is similar with the first reference. Secondary schools are assumed to be not notable, so deletion for them is somewhat uncontroversial. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No, secondary schools are certainly not "assumed to be not notable". They are assessed on a case by case basis and most western secondary schools are kept, so should never be prodded as uncontroversial deletion. It's primary schools that are generally assumed to be non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is sourced and proves notability. Bleaney (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't know what to do with it but I'll have to leave this article as is as there is adequate sourcing. HarukaAmaranth (話) 15:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2023 (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.