Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheadle Hulme High School (2nd nomination)

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 Snowball keep. Acalamari 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheadle Hulme High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cheadle Hulme High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I tried getting it deleted per CSD A7 it, but it seems that A7 doesn't apply to schools, so I'm going to try and get it deleted here, or spur on some claim to notability. Unfortunately, the article's creator simply reverted my CSD nomination with no explanation being given. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Plenty of sources in the article, certainly not an A7. If you do a quick g search, you'll see plenty of other sources that could be added. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ryan and per no valid rationale to delete given. Clearly not an CSD A7 case. M0RD00R 11:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 11:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly not a CSD A7 candidate, actually a reasonable article with a few sources. A search indicates more could be added in the future. Camaron1 | Chris 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The only sources given are the school's own website, the village website and website of the school library: I count that as no independent sources. Google turns up very little: the Wikipedia entry comes in fourth. I can't see any way that this school can currently make any claim to notability.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 13:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But would you agree there are some independant sources in the google search? I believe government results for the school can verify most of the contents for the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's all very well having plenty of sources - which there aren't, incidentally (the Govt. results are the only things Google turns up that are remotely relevant) - but it would still fail WP:N horribly. There isn't even the slightest claim to notability! It's got marginally above-average academic results. It's got a representative number of pupils. It hasn't got a single notable alumnus. It hasn't got ANY architectural notability. I see no reason for it to be here on Wikipedia.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 13:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • [1] gives a lot more than results, it actually states a lot of helpful information on the school. [2] Ofsted reports are frequently used as independent school article resources, and this one gives plenty of information for the article.[3] This independent league table can also be used in the article, there is also this one I found [4]. A detailed search does actually reveal quite a few sources. In September 2000 the school became one of the first in the country to become a training school for Initial Teacher Training and Continuing Professional Development. - This statement, if it can be sourced, will also indicate notability. On Alumni, I doubt a school that size would not have any at all - and lack of results from Google should not mean a conclusion that there are none, a search of offline sources would probably give more info. Camaron1 | Chris 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no valid reason for deletion given in original AFD and Ofsted report is a valid independant source that can be used. Keith D 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep for an invalid nomination reason. Inability to speedy delete is not a valid deletion reason. Per the result of the previous AfD and WP:OUTCOMES, this should be an automatic keep. Nom has shown no reason as to why this high school would be less notable since the previous AfD. Also, articles which survive an AfD should never be Speedy Deleted. Smashville 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as no valid deletion grounds have been specified. This has been kept at AfD and a good reason needs to be adduced to question the Community's judgement; and none has. It is prominently mentioned that this is a Training School. Training schools are highly notable in the UK; they have been selected for their high standards and exceptional ethos. They are officially described as "centres of excellence for training" and "as experts in adult learning and the transfer of skills, and provide a venue for high quality professional development". TerriersFan 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article makes strong claims of notability, and provides reliable sources to support it. The article met all relevant standards at the previous AfD, and still does so now. Alansohn 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many high schools on wikipedia, move along, children. Mindraker 21:42, 23 October 2007 (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/Cheadle_Hulme_High_School_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1079661866"