Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ennis National 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. --Coredesat 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ennis National School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Significant enough to warrant a page? Sad mouse 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't appear so. Unless anyone can show that it is, delete. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added a few points to the article, including a link to media coverage of the campaign to rebuild the 100 years-old school. --Mereda 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite Mereda's impressive job of sourcing, the article still makes no real claim to the notability of the school. In its current state, fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and, ignoring the ridiculous age criterion, WP:SCHOOLS. Do not oppose a merge/redirect to the appropriate school district or locality article. Shimeru 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shimeru stole my answer. Denni ^talk 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WIthout an official policy or guideline, there's no basis for stating here what is and is not "notable". I think the article as it stands now is sufficient for inclusion based on the aforementioned sourcing and the obvious historical nature (over 100 years old) of the place. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's located in Europe, where 100 years isn't that much, historically speaking. Certainly not enough to call it "obvious" without any supporting sources. And while there are no formal guidelines in place, it remains true that the article does not assert notability. Regardless of what may or may not constitute notability, it's general consensus that a claim of such is required. Shimeru 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some (like me) would find stating that it opened in 1897 is stating notability. Some would even find simply stating that it is a school is stating notability. Until a guideline/policy exists, we're all talking in the dark here anyway. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is WP:NN. This school has not been shown "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Shimeru 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight a bit, it should be pointed out that WP:N is a "disputed" page that is directly part of an ongoing RFAR and arbcom has expressed concerns over its status [1]. Regarding your comment about sources, it is clear that you have not looked very deeply into press coverage of Ennis. In fact, Ennis has been at the heart of a national scandal involving sanitation and dangerous health conditions in the schools that has been extensively covered in the Irish press for years. --JJay 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about any sources. I merely pointed out that none of them were cited in the article, and subsequently that the school cannot be called "obvious[ly] historical" without such sources. As for your source... I suppose "one of the most dilapidated schools" in the area could be considered noteworthy, on reflection. It's not the sort of accomplishment I tend to look for, personally. As for WP:N, it may be disputed, but it is not (yet) rejected, so, to the best of my knowledge, it remains a guideline. Shimeru 08:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Shimeru actually meant WP:N not WP:NN which is what the dispute centers around. JoshuaZ 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My link and comment directly concerns the disputed WP:N. For further info, see the WP:N talk page and the entire arbcom case. --JJay 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With Mereda's efforts at expansion, sufficient additional sources have been added to demonstrate compliance with WP:RS and WP:V necessary to satisfy WP:SCHOOLS. Alansohn 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and WP:SCHOOLS which this article now meets, verifiably. Silensor 07:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment above. Article needs to be developed to include the health scandal, the threatened teachers strike over the issue and the church's windfall from the rezoning of a new site for the school (registration or pay required to view articles but google news gives an idea [2]). I shouldn't have to remind people that we do not delete articles just because they are stubs. Finally, to answer Sad Mouse's question: yes, this school is more than significant enough to merit a page--JJay 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay presuming someone adds the sources. JoshuaZ 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete on the absence of sources at this time, which is when we are commentingDGG 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks to me like every single sentence is sourced. --JJay 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons cited above. WMMartin 17:09, 4 December 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.