Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldersley High School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ansh666 07:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aldersley High School[edit]

Aldersley High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG, topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it is presumed not to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Thinker78 (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless significant coverage can be found; my own search yielded only passing mentions. One would expect that, since this is a modern school in Britain, significant coverage would be available on-line if it exists at all. If the article is kept, it must be pruned to include only verifiable information. Pburka (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sign of any coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, lacks significant coverage beyond the primary source.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • US high schools are considered implicitly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That claim directly contradicts WP:ORG, and this isn't a US school. Pburka (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The point is that high schools (which actually exist) can't avoid passing GNG, because there are so many official registries, Ofsted reviews etc. that each and every school which exists will implicitly have a footprint which passes GNG. They may not be notable, but they will be WP:NOTABLE. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES notes the outcome of an RfC, though, including the conclusion that secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.G.R.M Higher Secondary School, where consensus was to merge the article because while the school was demonstrated to exist, sufficient sources for an article could not be found during the AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official records are primary sources and don't contribute to notability. If we start considering government and regulator records as evidence of notability then every business and every civil servant would be notable. Pburka (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I edited your comment because I think that you intended to link to the news articles themselves and not the Wikipedia articles of the sources. If that's not the case simply change it back). Thinker78 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qwfp linked to both the Wikipedia articles and the sources, Thinker78, which is what I imagine they intended to do. In general, it is not a good idea to edit others' comments unless they are seriously broken and causing technical problems. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:GNG, " 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". One of the articles should then not be taken into account. Regarding Ofsted, context matters, so while it may be a reliable source to check facts, I don't think it is a reliable source to establish notability in this case, otherwise every single mention in government public records would establish notability, so if my house is listed publicly in some government record, it would be notable, and I think that simply is not the case. Basically, as I see it you really presented two instances of arguably significant coverage in a reliable source. Per WP:GNG, "There is no fixed number of sources required..., but multiple sources are generally expected." Please provide more evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Thinker78 (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Birmingham Mail "article" appears to be autogenerated by scraping government records. There's no editorial content at all. I hardly think it constitutes significant coverage. Pburka (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be surprised if any government records include an 11-page report about your house, Thinker78. I'd consider that to be significant coverage in an independent reliable source, while a mere listing would not be. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS does not mention notability but says "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Ofsted is clearly a reliable and appropriate source for statements of fact about a school. --Qwfp (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder how many court records meet the 11 page threshold, and if you think every published court case accessible to the public that meets said threshold should then be considered notable for Wikipedia standards. Thinker78 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I don't. Most court cases, even those covered in newspapers, should not have articles per WP:NOTNEWS. I would consider a court report to be reliable source for a case of enough enduring interest for its own article, such as Murder of James Bulger. Unlike the vast majority of court cases, high schools are of enduring interest. Qwfp (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:V is a basic policy and thus supersedes WP:GNG (guideline); independent sourcing of any kind is what satisfies WP:V, regardless of whatever objections about it. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DP states, "Reasons for deletion include.... Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." WP:DP then incorporates as policy WP:GNG, and because it is also basic policy, it can supersede WP:V if this latter has a less stringent criteria in the WP:DP jurisdiction. Thinker78 (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your reasoning here, SwisterTwister, unless you are arguing that everything that can be verified can be the subject of an article (I presume not)? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per long standing practice on secondary schools. Various offline sources definitely exist including government reports showing notability. And (not that this really is a policy reason, but seems to me to be fairly important anyway), this school is at least as significant as the hundreds of other British secondary schools which are not currently subject to a AfD. This long string of school AfDs is getting very repetitive. JMWt (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But do you have arguments based on policy, content or sourcing? Or is it again the classic circular reasoning so popular on wp:schooloutcomes but dismissed by RFC? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless official community-wide consensus changed the status quo 'incessant' nominating high schools for deletion is at least waste of time at worst disruption. As I said in many AfDs I don't generally consider them notable worthy of being encyclopedic material, but the consensus of the community do. I hope this will be soon close as speedy keep. There are plethora of articles of non notable people, product and spam of companies and musicians that is where we should direct our nominating power to rid Wikipedia of them not educational institutions –Ammarpad (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But do you have arguments based on policy, content or sourcing? Or is it again the classic circular reasoning so popular on wp:schooloutcomes but dismissed by RFC? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I think, I know what you think. We're both aware that there is a major difference of opinion on this topic. Let's not fight it out on every AfD.JMWt (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you state the same things over and over again, you can expect that I try to rebuke them over and over again. You know that it is only a so-called consensus, flimsy at best. The Banner talk 18:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please share the link to the official community-wide consensus. I direct my power in simply looking at the recent changes log and work through the list, and that's how this school came to my attention. Thinker78 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Community consensus is based on outcomes of AfDs though, Ammarpad, so if bringing articles to AfD is treated as disruptive, then consensus can't change. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cordless Larry: the reason I said that is, please get time and analyze concluded AfDs for at least 30 days, and skips some days at random. (This is to give some randomness, though not based on any formal statistics method). You'll find amazing pattern. I did it, though it is informal and now don't have the time to put the statistics on my user space. You'll surely find amazing pattern. but here is some gist: 1- 95% of high school resulted in keep (some speedy). 2. Nominators who nominated schools show reluctance to do it again after failed nom. 3. Though majority of the schools at AfD are (stubs, real stubs), people keep voting keep!. 4-In "theory" Schools are organizations and must fulfill WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG while in "reality" at AfD, all that school needs is to exists, having web presence (primary source) is another keep, keep. So that's why I said incessant nomination (not first time) can be disruptuve –Ammarpad (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement that "nominating high schools for deletion is at least waste of time at worst disruption" seemed to apply to all nominations, Ammarpad. In any case, what tool did you use to do this analysis? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cordless Larry: I think that @Ammarpad:may be right about the community's standard practice being to keep high school articles. I went to check closed AfD's and I found that in a random sample of ten high school articles, the finding in eight was to keep and in the other two it was no consensus. So I think that next time I see a high school article I will steer clear from submitting it for AfD. Thinker78 (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cordless Larry:. Thank you, I now modified nominating with 'incessant'. I don't mean All, but certainly I mean many, "many" in every sense. Then you second question, I already said it is just basic Arithmetic, that's going through AfDs and sifting the High schools ones and kept watching them till they close. On majority of them I neither voted nor commented just interested in the outcome. And I am sure this AfD will only substantiate my findings. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles are deleted or kept following consensus or lack thereof, not by voting. WP:CONSENSUS state, "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia... Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity... nor is it the result of a vote." Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep standard practice. Blythwood (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But do you have arguments based on policy, content or sourcing? Or is it again the classic circular reasoning so popular on wp:schooloutcomes but dismissed by RFC? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Secondary schools of confirmed existence have long been regarded as inherently notable at AfD, much in the same way that rivers, mountains, villages, and professional athletes are regarded as inherently notable. I support this longstanding consensus. Carrite (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But do you have arguments based on policy, content or sourcing? Or is it again the classic circular reasoning so popular on wp:schooloutcomes but dismissed by RFC? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most of us know that these subjects have sourcing, tons of sourcing. It's not always online, but it's there. We (collective of wikipedia editors) could spend hundreds of hours trying to prove this point, and might or might not "win" this particular discussion, but the information is there and it will probably be found, then the article will be written again. In the process, valuable effort is wasted. If we're going to build the encyclopedia, we don't need to spend all our time fighting amongst ourselves on something where the outcome is really already known. That's why Outcomes was written, and although it may have been abused it certainly served us well. We can either respect our traditions or we can devolve into an anarchy of AfD wars. This school certainly exists, and we should keep the article and give it time to improve.Jacona (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:The Banner,I can't be responsible for fixing every problem, right now. That doesn't mean that everything, created by anyone, that I don't fix this second should be destroyed. Perhaps if you would spend a small percentage of the time you've spent responding to every comment here to improving the article, it would have good article status by now. :) Jacona (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But do you have arguments based on policy, content or sourcing? Or is it again the classic circular reasoning so popular on wp:schooloutcomes but dismissed by RFC? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per precedent pointed out by Ammarpad and others. Also suggest specific direction be provided regarding schools so as to settle the issue. Last attempt appears to be 2007-09 here. Unless specialized criteria is created, I suggest senior high schools meet WP:ORG. Operator873CONNECT 23:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jacona makes a good point as do the others who rightfully call these nominations a waste of time given that schools are very notable places of interest to communities and just because the sources are not there now, does not mean they can't be found , see also WP:HEY. Also schools are places of local interest see WP:local. These nominations seem to be in bad faith. Why would anyone working on a encyclopedia of human knowledge gain pleasure (if the article for deletion passes) at seeing verifiable knowledge of local institutions be sent down the deletion hole? I honestly don't understand it.Egaoblai (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying that they are the most vandalised articles. Some of the most vandalised articles are on very prominent, important topics, and should obviously be kept, whereas I would argue that time spent keeping school articles free of vandalism is wasted, as those articles are generally of little encyclopedic value. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really agree to with one part of your comment here, that is High schools have very little encyclopedic value and this is not the first place I am saying this: Don't forget; we met here and I made it clear my personal view is that HS must meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH strictly, but Community consensus is strongly against that, only now I understand we met there. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as discussed above.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources, both from newspapers and the government, which cover the school in-depth. Sure, the recent RFC means we can't just assert an article should be kept without sources, but they exist in this case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:37, 1 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aldersley_High_School&oldid=1089512553"