Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arellano 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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Arellano High School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG: All reliable sources I could find are either not independent or do not have significant coverage. Lurking shadow (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lurking shadow (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - non-notable school - there are no references in the article and I couldn't find any mentions in reliable sources, not even the usual local school coverage of sports and games, awards, etc. - there is a book, "Arellano (Manila North) High School Across Time", but it is self-published - Epinoia (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Among the many reliable sources found by the searches spoon-fed by the nomination process are this book, this academic paper and these news articles. I suppose Epinoia's statement that the "usual local school coverage of sports..." is not found is technically correct, because this seems to be mostly national rather than local coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep I agree with Phil Bridger that the book and paper he found are independent, reliable, and significant. I'm not sure that they are significantly enough about the school to devote an article to, and the book, at least, is more primary than I would like.  That said, I think they are just the tip of the iceberg and some dedicated searching could find enough material to make an article out of without requiring synthesis.  On the other hand, I agree with the current tagging of the article that its current incarnation is completely unworkable. Rockphed (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The press articles are routine coverage, not significant coverage. The rest is also not significant coverage - simply because you can't use that material for an article. The Organizing Schools research paper focuses on something else - an aspect - and the information there is almost exclusively obviously outdated, and would give a false impression about that school. The book found on SITE focuses on a single aspect (the use of X) and looks - like you said - a bit too much like a primary source, and also not really independent. Significant coverage basically means "enough info for a good article" and neither routine sports coverage nor info from one(outdated) point of time out of a long timespan are enough on their own to write an acceptable article. The book is not only primary, and not independent, but also suffers from focusing on something specific. We basically have several not connected middle tiles of a puzzle; if put that together we have an article that's very likely misrepresenting the subject. The current state of the article is abysmal and WP:TNT applies, too.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The book that I cited is by no means primary, completely independent, and has a general overview of the school's status and history on pages 59-60, which includes the statement that it is one of the longest-established high schools in the capital of the Philippines. This is better sourcing than we have for the vast majority of US high schools whose articles are kept without question. Indeed, just the news coverage of this school's basketball team is better than we have for the vast majority of US high schools whose articles are kept without question. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the info is dated(e.g. "currently") and can not serve as basis of the article alone. The info that's actually there is not enough for a standalone article(although it should normally be enough for a brief mention on a list,List of schools in the Philippines has been deleted in a deletion discussion). The rest of your reply is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the sourcing is as you describe these articles should be redirected, merged or deleted.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - The sources linked above aren't great, but frankly they're not much worse than the average high school article has (sadly), and I'm often willing to give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt when the sources might not be accessible (technically or practically). That would leave me at neutral/abstain, most likely. What pushes me over to weak delete is that we have an article with a whole lot of claims that demand citations, but which has precisely zero references. There's not really any material to preserve in that context, save a statement that the school exists. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks for the work Phil Bridger. Regarding this HS WP:NOTPAPER it seems clear that WP:NEXIST. Wm335td (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Hello. Just a casual Wikipedian passing by. I tried to add the references by finding some articles and books as sources and cleaned up the essay like history. I am in no way affiliated to the school so I won't argue if the majority decides to delete it. Maybe you may want to take a look now or even improve what I just did. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My case for deletion is weaker now, that the article is at least in an acceptable state, although unsourced entries remain that will need to be cleaned up later. However, if it is indeed a case for "keep", then only narrowly so, because there is not much coverage, and no reliable independent sources can be found for long periods of time, which means the article won't give readers that much good information about the school.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2019 (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.