Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eben Donges High School

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 no consensus, leaning towards keep. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the article having almost no content, this school is not notable. See also guidelines on schools notable enough for separate articles: Wikipedia:Schools Deon Steyn 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. No evidence that it meets WP:SCHOOL. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Normally I wouldn't say this, but WP:SCHOOL is a proposed guideline that hasn't gathered consensus. There's still quite a few people who think all schools above elementary grade are inherently notable (I'm not sure why, but they do). I'm perfectly happy to have this deleted on verifiability grounds, but not on a proposed guideline that's in contention. ColourBurst 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:SCHOOL also specifies that schools that don't meet its guidelines should be merged, not deleted, unless they appear to be unverifiable (which this one may or may not be, haven't really looked at it yet). JYolkowski // talk 22:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Kraaifontein; the information in the article appears to be verifiable but it appears unlikely that the article will expand anytime soon. Also, Kraaifontein desperately needs content of some sort. JYolkowski // talk 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. The school is notable; the article is a stub. It needs to be expanded, not deleted. — RJH (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notable how? JoshuaZ 04:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, failing that merge. It's always nice to see my articles show up on AFD, LOL. Anyway this article improves our pitifully inadequate coverage of schools in Africa, if not much. See also wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 04:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure what my opinion should be in this case. The school makes no claim of notability nor is it clear that it even meets WP:V- at minimum it will be very difficult to find reliable sources. I have some concerns about deleting this reinforcing problems of systemic bias. However concerns about systemic bias cannot overide WP:V. JoshuaZ 04:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A district school board/education department directory listing is a reliable source, even if it doesn't say much about the school. Merge into the appropriate region's article. ColourBurst 16:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is a List of High Schools in South Africa that include this and other schools, but most with separate pages are just stubs and definitely not notable, I simply chose this one to start the delete process with (keep list, delete separate stub articles). --Deon Steyn 06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not how the "delete process" works. Kappa 06:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to follow these procedures: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion, apologizes if this was incorrect or were you referring to some other aspect of the nomination? Any help will be appreciated. --Deon Steyn 07:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to talk about this school somewhere else, it's a WP:MERGE and deletion is not involved at all. Kappa 08:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yes, I understand what you mean. No, once it is delete I would remove it from that list too. --Deon Steyn 09:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school, notwithstanding the bald assertions of notability above. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pardon me, but isn't that every bit as bald an assertion of non-notability? -- Necrothesp 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No. notability is something which by default entities lack in so far as the vast majority of things in the universe are not notable, the presumption is non-notability. Thus, for any claim of notability the burden of proof is on the one claiming it is notable. JoshuaZ 02:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Nothing in the article resembling an assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete. Article does not say much. Vegaswikian 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to the appropriate locality per WP:SCHOOLS, WP:BIAS, WP:LOCAL, et cetera. Silensor 06:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Silensor. - Lex 09:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not asserted. Secondary school, ergo not notable. AKAF 16:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To clarify from discussion swith Akaf, Akaf means that secondary schools are not inherently notable. JoshuaZ 16:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets all content policies. Merging such articles pending expansion is of course fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets all of Wikipedia's content policies. WP:SCHOOLS is an irrelevance because a) It has not achieved consensus support and b) It is a guideline, not part of the deletion criteria. Cynical 21:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the school has 851 students and is thus notable. Article just need some expansion. bbx 00:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per cynical.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Nothing gives the school any notability. Nothing about this school makes it any more special or notable than a run of the mill school. It has no athletic teams of note, no alumni of note, nor anything else that might make it notable. Furthermore, the lack of sources makes it meet the most basic notability criteria of having multipe non-trivial sources. Indeed, the lack of sources makes there be a WP:V problem as well, and WP:V. JoshuaZ 22:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • It helps to only "vote" once. I struggle to understand your interpretation of WP:V. Kappa 02:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing that out. I must have forgotten I had already given my opinion above in that regard. As to the WP:V concern the issue is simple, with a single source we can't do much of anything that meets WP:V, all we really have is existence and not much else. JoshuaZ 02:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll abandon my attempt to understand that interpretation. Kappa 06:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kappa, you do see how we only have directory type information, location, number of students, etc? That doesn't make an encyclopedia entry. JoshuaZ 06:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your interpretation of WP:V is getting increasingly bizarre. Kappa 06:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok. I'll be as explicit as I can(it is possible that I'm simply not explaining things well since I'm running under little sleep): If we stay subject to WP:V we will have only a very tiny set of details that consistute nothing more than a directory entry. Any attempt to expand will run afoul of WP:V. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, this is not an acceptable status. JoshuaZ 06:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current version of the article is acceptable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All it has is the name, location, and the number of students and teachers, plus a vague assertion that its facilities include indoor plumbing. Have you read the article? There's nothing even resembling an assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 07:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per cynical. --Myles Long 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JoshuaZ, no claim of notability, and what he have at the moment does not appear to be an article or a stub but a directory entry. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep a good article!! Audiobooks 20:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- May be a single-purpose account; user is 3 days old and half of his/her edits have been to post this message to school-related AFDs. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:41, 30 October 2006 (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.