Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Challoner Catholic Secondary 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Bishop Challoner Catholic Secondary School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has no 3rd party sources, and according to WP:Source and WP:THIRDPARTY 3rd party sources are key. Personally I worked on this article as a much unexperienced editor, and was not aware of such policies. For this reason, I request this article be deleted. W.D. (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The notability guideline requires that significant coverage third party sources exists - it doesn't necessarily have to be referenced in the article (although that would of course be preferable). A quick Google News and Google Books search for "Bishop Challoner Basingstoke" shows that the school certainly has some coverage in third party reliable sources; I'm reasonably confident more significant coverage could be found with the aid of a little research.  W a g g e r s  TALK  14:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It is established practice that we keep all verifiable articles on high schools. For those who think the GNG covers all cases despite the clear statement that it does not, this is harmonized by saying that sufficient investigation always shows that sufficient sources are available. IMO, the practical reason for this compromise was to avoid the thousands of afds, all hinging on the exact interpretation of what was significant coverage, a question that in most such debates before we accepted the compromise  could equally well be interpreted in either direction, with results that were approximately random. (its even trickier with elementary schools, and the other side of the compromise was accepted that those should normally be merged into the locality.)&#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and as further documented at WP:OUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - AfD is not for cleanup; please read WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2013 (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.