Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitefield Academy (Missouri)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitefield Academy (Missouri)[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)

As has been stated on the talk page, the only source for backing up notability is not reliable for that purpose. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, secondary schools are no longer presumed to be notable. The are no other instances of significant coverage in independent sources. Jfhutson (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, as with any American secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the sourcing was in fact the same as "any American secondary school", I would !vote to delete, in light of consensus that secondary schools are not presumptively notable. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. But it isn't: it has in fact made ~~the mainstream national press, see e.g. 1, as well as~~ other outlets, see e.g. 2, 3, and 4. Although these stories all stem from the same event, they are intellectually independent from each other, and that's enough. There's also the usual local coverage, and while that might not be enough standing alone, when combined with the above sources I'm convinced there's enough to eke out a WP:GNG pass. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: the nbc story is about an unrelated school in Kentucky. -Jfhutson (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch: I've stricken the relevant part above. That definitely makes this a closer case, but on balance I think there's probably still enough to satisfy the GNG. Here are two more sources: 1 and 2. Neither is particularly impressive, but when combined with the fact that the most recent event garnered plenty of coverage (some of it as distant as Germany), I suppose it's enough. Hardly the nation's most notable school, but probably adequate nonetheless. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the remaining sources are either local or gay interest magazines. Local sources do not satisfy WP:AUD and gay interest magazines would also be "media of limited interest" under that guideline. Under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Numerical facts, it is not the number of sources you can find, but the "quality of the content that governs." So the purely local human interest story about "Serve Day" counts for nothing rather than being able to be "combined" with other questionable sources to eke out notability. Not a single source is providing in depth significant coverage of the institution. It is all covering single events and not providing an "overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization" per WP:ORGDEPTH. The recent controversy, which is the only event that has come close to being in independent sources (all of which are not reliable sources in my opinion) is a single event which is clearly fails under the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage of the company itself: "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization." --Jfhutson (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:NORG were the applicable guideline, I'd be tempted to agree. But per WP:NSCHOOL, meeting the GNG is sufficient. And the GNG isn't nearly as strict about the audience, etc., instead requiring only reliability and "address[ing] the topic in detail". I find it hard to maintain that the sources here don't meet those standards: no reliability issues stand out, and the school is the main subject of most of the articles above. Unless consensus over NORG and schools changes, this article would seem to pass – at least marginally – our notability guidelines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG with the bit on the school's blatant bigotry. Neither NORG or AUD apply. Closer might want to review recent school article deletion discussions, as that false argument has led to several deletions recently (+/- 6 months). 174.212.213.2 (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG, and as noted by Extraordinary Writ and 174.212.213.2 above, NORG and AUD are not required. Only for-profit institutions must meet those requirements. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:52, 25 May 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.