Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amaya School of Home and Industries


 * 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. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Amaya School of Home and Industries

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not assert notability. SGGH speak! 09:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged it for speedy deletion as an article without enough context. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy tag removed. The article stated what the subject is (a high school) and where it its (Tanza, Cavite). I've edited for clarity, but it was an easy enough problem to fix. Also, please note that the nominator removed "irrelevant" content before nominating for AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added back some content that is plainly relevant. This should have been cleaned up and not removed. I have also verified the status of the school. TerriersFan (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is notable not only as a high school but by virtue of the organisational arrangements. We need to be wary of systemic bias. Philippines' schools rarely have a presence on the internet so we need to rely on local sourcing which we should be encouraging not deleting stubs. TerriersFan (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. High schools are not considered automatically notable (there was no consensus on this at the draft WP:SCHOOL), so there should not be a presumption that enough reliable sources can be found to meet WP:N. If these sources can be found offline in the future someone can re-create the article then. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - which is precisely how we do not deal with stubs. We have stubs because existing articles attract editors whereas the concept of keeping articles off Wikipedia until they are fully developed is fatally flawed since it rarely happens. TerriersFan (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * keep although technically High schools aren't automatically notable, in practice they are--we have accepted every one brought here for a long time now. Experience shows there is always something to say, and sources as well. I wasnt altogether happy with accepting this rule at first myself, but it seems the practical course. DGG (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since there is no consensus on rules to determine notability of a high school, this article should be kept by default. Starczamora (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, given that, among others, this school was created by virtue of a Republic Act (much like most public high schools administered on the regional/national level). However, I take exception with the notability assertion; this school is likely not the only high school created by virtue of a Republic Act (unless, I think, if the said R.A. was met with a national controversy), and even more likely not the only school administered by someone holding a high-profile position (at least, in the TESDA/DepEd rank and file). (As I've explained in the Talk page, it's like saying that a person's notability rests on the fact that he was born on an unusual date such as February 29; notability, if ever, should be based on something more substantive.) Accordingly, I rewrote that part to de-emphasize the alleged "notability".
 * Keep It's a high school, so imo notable. RMHED (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.