Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carihi 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The result was nomination withdrawn (speedy keep), without prejudice to re-nomination in the future and/or merging or redirecting in consideration of various Wikipedia policies, current, and future sources available. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T · C  02:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Carihi Secondary School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cardiffbear88 PRODed this non-notable British Columbia high school, but was dePRODed without any reason whatsoever by another user. Cardiffbear88's PRODing of this article was a good move in my opinion considering that long-established Wikipedia practice for elementary or high schools is to delete and/or redirect to a school district article page (where available). One of these two options seems the best here. Also, note, too, that article is completely uncited, and there's no mention of any context besides saying it's a school and it exists. Doug Mehus T · C  02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus  T · C  02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus  T · C  02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , it's difficult to follow what you are saying, but the longstanding practice you mention above is to keep high schools and redirect lower schools. This is a high school. In Canada. Do you want to withdraw this? John from Idegon (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Like most high schools, there is likely to be sufficient coverage per WP:NEXIST. This particular school seems to be additionally notable due its Kwakʼwala language program, and aborginal support block discussed in detail here but also mentioned in numerous reliable sources.Pontificalibus 07:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - John from Idegon/Doug Mehus - that practice changed in 2017, please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Basically, any school now needs to show that it meets WP:GNG and this is the primary thing we should be concerned with, not robotically redirecting some schools whilst keeping others.
 * In this case this is a tentative keep as, as Pontificalibus says, the language programs and sports teams of this high school appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources (see, e.g., 1 2 3 4) FOARP (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , That's not correct WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not in itself a reason for keep. See the reasons cited at Articles for deletion/Rutland Middle School and Articles for deletion/George Elliot Secondary School. -DM Doug Mehus T · C  17:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , and/or care to chime in with what I mean? Apologies for the poorly, and quickly, formed AfD nomination. Doug Mehus  T · C  17:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Also, should be pinged for his expertise. Doug Mehus  T · C  17:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Mehus - you should be careful with selective pinging of editors as it may look like WP:CANVAS. I'm not using WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a keep rationale - I'm saying that the thing that really matter here (as determined in the 2017 RFC) is whether or not WP:GNG is met, which it is. FOARP (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't intending to canvas anyone...I can ping the other editors from that discussion (but I got most of them). Nevertheless, in those discussions, the decision to delete was unanimous. My understanding of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is that it's not a keep reason on its own. There's no indication WP:GNG is met here. Doug Mehus T · C  19:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we are agreed that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a keep/delete rationale. I think WP:GNG is met based on the references already discussed above which is why I'm voting keep. FOARP (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The school has received significant attention for its language program, per Pontificalibus and John from Idegon, and regular coverage from the local newspaper, the Campbell River Mirror (e.g., , ). Basic GNG pass. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , With respect, I don't think that's correct, quite frankly. It's not a "basic GNG pass." It's not enough to say the school exists. We need to consider the depth of the sources available; I can tell you that those schools I mentioned, which were deleted, are the subject of a lot more press coverage than this school. However, all of it is trivial coverage, like the sources you quoted. Trivial sources do not count to WP:GNG. Doug Mehus T · C  19:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure I agree with your classification of the above sources as trivial. Perhaps I was flippant in posting these exact articles, but the (admittedly inadequate) description in WP:GNG of "trivial sources" gives an example of a one sentence mention of a subject. I believe the articles I linked are wholly on the school (or students of the school, notable as part of their sports program); perhaps these articles are more explicitly non-trivial mentions? Also I don't think your argument that schools you mentioned "which were deleted, are the subject of a lot more press coverage" is very valid, as both of the AfDs you linked met with minimal comment from other editors, so don't represent much of a consensus on the matter (also see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Regards, Tenpop421 (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Agree with you on the inadequacies of WP:GNG, but I think there's a pretty lengthy precedent of redirecting ultra-stubs to their school district article. Not every article is deserving of their own page. Doug Mehus T · C  20:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . While the article is an stub (or "ultrastub") at this point, I think it could be sufficiently expanded with the sources noted by the editors above, especially in regard to its language programs. Redirecting means this (fairly noted, interesting) information would simply not be on wikipedia, which doesn't very conducive to building an encyclopedia. Considering merging, I'm not sure how the school district article, which is currently a rather bare-bones list, could comfortably contain a section on this school. Either way I think the article is best being kept, a stub is better than nothing at all. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Okay, I'm fine if it's kept, without prejudice to merging in the future. I know some editors are reluctant to compel merges at AfD. Doug Mehus T · C  20:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , See also School District 23 Central Okanagan for how the schools can be merged. Most of the schools listed there were the result of redirect or merge decisions at AfD; some of them even had more content (and citations) than this article. Doug Mehus T · C  20:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , glad to have come to an agreement. Looking over a few of the articles that were merged into that article, many seem to be elementary school articles, which were mostly considered inherently unnotable, and few contained little more than an infobox of basic info contained in the school district article. Don't see much merging going on in total. Also, noted that you're responsible for most of these deletions, lol. PS, are you indicating that you're withdrawing the nomination or not? Thanks, Tenpop421 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I haven't decided if I'll withdraw this nomination yet. Doug Mehus T · C  21:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that the present state of the article is not ultimately what matters at AFD, as AFD is not clean-up. It therefore doesn't matter that this is a stub, or that the article at present doesn't have sufficient referencing. What matter is whether a decent article could be written - and I think it could based on the sources already discussed. FOARP (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Right, but we should not strive for C-, start-, or stub-class articles. To me, there aren't sufficient sources to get this to GA status. I may withdraw the nomination without prejudice to re-nomination, merging, or redirecting, in the future, but haven't decided as of yet. Doug Mehus T · C  23:11, 14 November 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.