Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Hill School
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. The consensus below is that this secondary educational institution is notable, even though fairly small and privately run. Discussion about moving the article to a disambiguated name can take continue on the Talk page as there is no consensus here on that issue. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rocky Hill School
- Rocky Hill School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested proposed deletion. PROD reasoning was " No indication this private school is sufficiently notable for an article." Reason for removal was a vague statement that it might be notable or redirected, without any actual evidence of notability or indication of where it would be redirected to... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a high school. Here's its sports page at MaxPreps.[1] Here's the 500+ hits at GNews.[2] One of its buildings, Hopelands, is on the National Register of Historic Places.[3] Just for fun, here's a Latin grammar written by a Rocky Hill School teacher[4] and reviewed in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review.[5] Keep, and please let's not start arguing about high schools again.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not looking for any sort of big fight on a broader issue, just this one article on this particualr private school. I know we consider public secondary schools as being the magical realm of "automatic notability" but if that standard has been extended to private schools this is the first I'm hearing of it. Maxpreps stated goal is " to cover every team, every game and every player" so an entry there is not an indication of notability. T.he NRHP listing makes a case that that specific building may be notable. The book and the review of it are not about the school, and as we all know notability is not inherited, so it's good that you indicated that you added those just for fun and they are not really relevant. Since the sources you highlighted in your post are actually not useful for establishing notability, I wonder if you would care to indicate what, among the extremely trivial routine coverage I'm seeing in those search results, indicates that this particualr school is notable. Number of Google hits is also not a good metric unless you actually confirm that the results constitute non-trivial coverage and are not false positives. The first two pages of rsults are summer camp guides, honor roll listings, brief entries in "local schools" columns in th local papers, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on my research at User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs, private secondary schools are almost always kept at AfD as well. Very small schools (much smaller than this) are an occasional exception. See Edison's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzaga High School for a better explanation.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not looking for any sort of big fight on a broader issue, just this one article on this particualr private school. I know we consider public secondary schools as being the magical realm of "automatic notability" but if that standard has been extended to private schools this is the first I'm hearing of it. Maxpreps stated goal is " to cover every team, every game and every player" so an entry there is not an indication of notability. T.he NRHP listing makes a case that that specific building may be notable. The book and the review of it are not about the school, and as we all know notability is not inherited, so it's good that you indicated that you added those just for fun and they are not really relevant. Since the sources you highlighted in your post are actually not useful for establishing notability, I wonder if you would care to indicate what, among the extremely trivial routine coverage I'm seeing in those search results, indicates that this particualr school is notable. Number of Google hits is also not a good metric unless you actually confirm that the results constitute non-trivial coverage and are not false positives. The first two pages of rsults are summer camp guides, honor roll listings, brief entries in "local schools" columns in th local papers, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are essentially arguments that we should keep this because we kept some similar articles. What about the subject of this article? Nobody has as yet brought even one source that indicates notability to the table. There is no policy on this, so WP:N should be the standard, as with all other articles for which there is no specific guidance available. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually for some reason I hadn't noticed those changes, my watchlist must be getting too big. Ok, let's see what we've got there:
- ref#1 is an abstract of an article about the historic buildings on campus which are an NRHP site. Again, that means those buildings may be independently notable.
- Ref#2 more of the same
- Ref#3 an obituary in the local paper for a former headmaster, not useful for establishing notability
- Ref #4 a picture of one of the historic buildings
- Ref #5 an article in a local paper about the school's anniversary in 1984, again mostly about the historic buildings
- Ref #6 looks to be a directory listing
- Ref #7 again, local coverage focussed almost entirely on the historic buildings
- Ref #8 routine coverage from the local paper of a new headmaster and opening of a new school year
- WP:REFBOMB and WP:PUFF would seem to apply, although you've made a very compelling case that those NRHP buildings need an article of their own. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- when one adds references to an article, its meant to provide citation, not every one is meant to show notability in an AfD, I already know this will be kept. The Warwick Beacon apparently ran a six piece series on the school (including Hopelands) but its hard to figure out the exact dates and components of each piece in their online version.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you are confusing me. I am well aware that WP:V is the other reason one adds sources to an article, but if you llok above I said that no references had been brought to the table that establish notability. You replied that you had added sources. I went throught them and found them all weak or useless for establishing notability, and now you are saying you were not in fact trying to establish notability, making me wonder why you pointed out these sources in direct response to my statement that notability had not been established by sourcing.... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just saying I'm not trying to flood the article. I do think some of these sources help show notability. I've been through a zillion AfDs where the nominator gets put in the unenviable position of feeling they have to defend against every reference to justify their nomination. Let's allow some other editors to review the AfD and comment and we'll see what the community thinks overall.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I agree that this isn't just a conversation between the two of us, but I also don't want to be one of those lazy nominators who just throw up a nom and leave it at that. I'm always prepared to admit it if I am proven wrong, but the sources we've got so far don't have any merit as far as notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just saying I'm not trying to flood the article. I do think some of these sources help show notability. I've been through a zillion AfDs where the nominator gets put in the unenviable position of feeling they have to defend against every reference to justify their nomination. Let's allow some other editors to review the AfD and comment and we'll see what the community thinks overall.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually for some reason I hadn't noticed those changes, my watchlist must be getting too big. Ok, let's see what we've got there:
- Keep - long consensus is that we keep verifiable high schools but, in addition, institutions located in registered historic buildings have also been kept. There are sources from which the page can be expanded and it is capable of meeting WP:ORG. I see no good reason or benefit to the Project in deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also a separate issue here, no matter what happens, this title should probably be a dab page, a plain search of just "Rocky Hill School" reveals multiple institutions by this name. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Secondary schools, whether public or private, are generally considered to be notable unless they are particularly small and insignificant. With well over 300 pupils, this one does not fall into that category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2012 (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.