Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Hill High School

Add links
Source: 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. Xclamation point 00:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Hill High School

Chester Hill High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

fails WP:ORG and WP:SCHOOLS Michellecrisp (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep Not sure how nom concludes a High School fails WP:SCHOOLS; high schools are basically assumed notable. And, just in case there's any issue over RS etc., the School News Archive has as it's first article a report on an event at the school where "Governor Marie Bashir" gave a speech. That's Governor of New South Wales, by the way, not a school governor. I think if the head of state of an administrative region with a population of nearly seven million bothers to attend a school's flag day, that school probably is notable. MadScot (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide this information in the article. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It'd be nice to have the 2008 version reported of course .... but that should do for now. MadScot (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
simply being sourced content is not sufficient enough a reason for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. see WP:NOT#NEWS. otherwise every incident, like a train delay or every crime. reported in the media would be up on Wikipedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the purpose of an AfD is to enable the broadest discussion; removing comments as here, because that you consider them insufficiently relevant, is not the way to go. Secondly, because you consider sourced content is inappropriate is not a reason to delete; it should remain for evaluation by uninvolved editors. This is particularly important when you have AfD'd a page. TerriersFan (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the incident is not the reason to delete this page. far from it, I'm disputing the inclusion and notability of that incident. Please respond to my query on the talk page. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to your wish to delete the page but your removal of sourced content here. TerriersFan (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided my justification of that edit on the Talk Page. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and on this we must agree to differ. Naturally, to AGF I accept your reasons for the content removal. However, the point that I am making is that it is not good practice to AfD a page on the grounds of lack of sources and then remove sources on a narrow interpretation of policy. TerriersFan (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#NEWS was listed in response to the inclusion of one news article which reported that molotov cocktails were once found at the school. I don't believe this was worthy of inclusion in a school article and did not add to the notability of the subject. Other more appropriate material has been added since I nominated this article. Also, there is of course no rule about number of times it comes up in Google news search, but it indicates this school has received very limited coverage in third party reporting.Michellecrisp (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, regarding single incidences which occur, there is a duty for us as editors to be responsible in our coverage, as Wikipedia is a top-10 website. Orderinchaos 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm aware that WP:SCHOOLS is a failed proposal but it gives some indication of what makes a school notable. Schools are not automatically notable, as I've seen a number of school articles deleted in recent months on WP. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of WP:SCHOOLS (which failed to gain endorsement for, among other reasons, strong opposition to repeated attempts to include a statement that high schools are automatically notable) WP:ORG applies to school articles, so the nomination is OK. It would be helpful if the editors supporting keeping the article would explain how it meets the criteria at WP:ORG rather than just state that they happen to think that high schools are notable. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much the first three keep !votes pointed to sources to secondary coverage of a non-trivial nature - the school is the subject of the articles in question - which would appear to pretty much meet WP:ORG even if no credit is given for being a high school. MadScot (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you please link to the AfD discussions where high schools have been deleted in recent months? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was not a bad faith nomination (I'm totally in disagreement with one or two above on this) and schools are not inherently notable - however, in Australia independent and reliable sources exist which would, on the basis of WP:N, give public high schools in metropolitan areas sufficient notability to pass AfD. (The same does not usually apply to public primary schools, where non-self-published sources may simply tell us it exists and little else.) Editors should be careful to avoid crufting up such articles and any editor can remove unsourced content, original research or unencyclopaedic content, but that is a matter for maintenance, not deletion. Orderinchaos 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with this; the nomination was definitely made in good faith, and I may have even supported a merge/redirect. However, the material removed was nothing resembling the list found at Wikipedia:SCFT#Ways_to_spot_Schoolcruft. This was a security incident that was reported in the The Daily Telegraph (Australia). While on follow-up research, the incident appears to be minor and removal is appropriate, removing that information in the middle of a deletion discussion by the nominator is not the best way to go about doing things. A single brief mention of a security upgrade at Jakarta International School led me to a multitude of sources describing the history and security of the school. While the section I wrote at Jakarta_International_School#Threats_and_security is far from high quality, I believe it is certainly appropriate information for any article about the school. There isn't anyway to tell unless the proper research is done. --Jh12 (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that incident because it in itself does not add to the notability of the school or the removal of this info was intended to further my case for deletion. Definitely not true. It seemed to me that someone in trying to find some sources for the school, did a google search and added (in good faith) the first newspaper article they saw. My own search of news articles revealed it was only reported once in the Telegraph article, so it did not get substantial media coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is no requirement in policy or guidelines that article subjects should be more notable than others of their type. Notability is decided on the subject's own merits, not by comparison with others. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply, there is a requirement however that the coverage be nontrivial. As pointed out above, having a figurehead like Marie Bashir visit the school once is hardly something that confers notability. Indeed, I doubt there are very many schools in Australia that haven't been visited by a state governor at some point. Show me some non-trivial, non-routine coverage, and I'll retract the above statement. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
reply Non trivial relates to coverage not being a passing mention, or being extremely thin. So, for example, had the article been about the Governor's daily routine, and the school was just listed as a place she went - that's trivial. Instead, the article is about the school, and the coverage is trivial with respect to the governor, not the school. MadScot (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I still believe practically any of the alternatives to deletion for a school article would be superior, particularly merge/redirect. Having said that, I have added some of the research I have found on this school, including a special commendation from the New South Wales Department of Education and Training, a mention of its Intensive English Centre, and significant security upgrades to the institution. --Jh12 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be a well written and encyclopedic article to me that meets WP:N in citing multiple independent sources appropriately. While I respect that the nomination was in good faith; I really don't see the need for deletion. At the absolute worse a merge and re-direct could occur - but I don't see the need for that either. WP:NOTNEWS is important, but it is pretty clear in the article with the sources used that security deserves at least a mention. WP:NNC means that WP:N is mostly irrelevant to individual sections or sentences of an article (though WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR e.t.c are not), and content can be added which does not directly add to notability such as primary sources to add context. Only the article as a whole usually needs to meet WP:N, and I am quite confident this article does, like most high school articles should do. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2008 (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/Chester_Hill_High_School&oldid=1144626922"