Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathedral High School (New Ulm, Minnesota)


 * 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 no consensus.  JGHowes   talk  19:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Cathedral High School (New Ulm, Minnesota)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable.

As per WP:NSCHOOL, "mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both."

As per WP:ORGSIG, schools are not exempt from the "No inherent notability" rule (i.e. it is not considered notable for the reason that it exists).

As per WP:GNG, the subject of this article doesn't satisfy the guideline as it can't satisfy any of the conditions (significant sources, reliable sources, independent of the subject etc.)

Upon a Google search, it receives very little/no notice from independent sources. It has had minimal effect on "culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" (from WP:ORG). The closest that comes to this is a swimmer who signed with the UoM, which is defined as "trivial" by WP:ORGDEPTH.

The article only has 3 citations, all of which would be considered primary. Also, I had initially accidentally submitted a PROD instead of an AfD. An argument given was that it is old thus shouldn't be deleted. Although it is old, age is not a guideline for establishing notability (unless it's some exception e.g. being the oldest school, which it doesn't qualify for).

As per WP:AUD "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". This school has not received mention from any non-local (i.e. non-regional) media.

Finally, this was the original page, added on 22 May, 2007. Looking at the changes since, you can see that the only additions have been the infobox, categories, and 2 citations. This, in my eyes, shows that there has been an extremely low level of interest over the past 13 years and thus strengthens the case for non-notability.

 Hun ter  00:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah, a lot of sources exist, but they're all local. I would second the claim that "The article only has 3 citations, all of which would be considered trivial." I wouldn't consider them trivial, but I would consider them primary. Le Panini Talk 00:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @Le Panini, USA Today and NY Times are not just local sources. Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , No, I was talking about https://www.newulm.com/. A lot of articles about the school there. Le Panini  Talk 00:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Whoops, first time making an AfD and didn't really understand the difference. Thanks for the clarification.  Hun ter  14:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As per all previous comments. Pahunkat (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per excellent reasoning of nom Spiderone  11:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above. Sliekid (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, local coverage is not excluded for GNG purposes and there is lots of local coverage here that neither primary nor trivial, e.g. these articles regarding the 100th anniversary of the school . Second, there is also significant non-local coverage as well e.g. these articles in New York Times and  USA Today  about a major controversy regarding the school (more sources on that ). Satisfies WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I couldn't see any of those articles due to GDPR. Not sure if Google restricts me from looking at them, but I couldn't find it at all in my Google search results. I have looked at them via proxy now, and I've got a few comments to make. Please bear in mind I'm still new, so might be making a few mistakes. Shouldn't citations 4, 5 and 6 count as 1 source? Citation 5 states that it is only using the information from citation 6, thus it is rewording and copying the story. Citation 4 is similarly using the content from citation 6. Additionally, the author for citation 4 doesn't have any other authors, thus it would count as a guest contribution which isn't as strong notability-wise as an article written by the staff of the news website. Therefore, we are left with 2 sources (which are, keeping in mind, the only non-local sources given). Therefore, I am doubtful that only 2 articles would count as significant coverage. As seen in the WP:3REFS essay, it would generally require 3 sources to be notable. It does say that it could be notable with 2 sources, but in the bottommost section of essay, it suggests that 3 independent references from different periods of time would successfully rebut notability challenges. Although I know that the essay isn't an official guideline, the fact that there are only 2 significant articles written about it and both for a specific event suggests that the school isn't notable. As per WP:ORGDEPTH, "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization". Therefore, from my understanding, the firing controversy shouldn't even be used to provide justification for the organisation (i.e. the school, as it is subject to organisation guidelines). Therefore, if we only look at the articles about the school itself, we are left with very few local articles describing the 100th anniversary of the school. As stated in my nomination, WP:AUD says that you need "significant coverage by... national, or at least regional, media" to suggest strong notability, thus it would still be non-notable. I apologise if this is excessively long or if I've misunderstood the guidelines; as I said I'm still new so I'm prone to mistakes.  Hun ter  01:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources quote each other all the time (New York Times quotes WaPo and vice versa), but they are still considered separate sources unless one source simply reprints an article from another (which also happens quite often). Your point about being a "guest contribution" and therefore somehow worth less in terms of notability than an article by a staff writer is complete and utter nonsense, There is no absolutely requirement of this kind anywhere in any notability guidelines and I've never heard it raised before even once, and I have participated in hundreds of AfDs. Newspapers use freelance journalists all the time and their articles are just as valid as those by regular staff writers. WP:3REFS is an essay with absolutely no policy weight or force. I am arguing notability based on WP:GNG here, not WP:ORG, so WP:ORGDEPTH is not relevant either. Nsk92 (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's pretty well established that articles written by contributors are considered self-published and are therefore "worth-less" (or really nothing) then pieces by staff writers. Plenty of sources in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources that are based on RfCs so say. For instance, the entry for Forbes.com says "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources." The entry for Encyclopedia Britannica says "editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content." The entry for Entrepreneur magazine says "there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as self-published, similar to Forbes contributors" Etc. Etc. So, there is clearly a consensus that articles by contributors are not good for determining notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There may be some specific publications where contributor pieces receive no editorial oversight and are considered unreliable, but such publications are certainly an exception and not the rule. Until you mentioned them, I haven't even heard about those. One has to assume that this is why these publications are explicitly listed in Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Most publications have editors review contributor pieces prior to publication and such sources are reliable. Nsk92 (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment This being kept seems to hinge on the "scandals" involving the dance couch and mainly the "article about it" in the New York Times. WP:GNG requires that a source contains "Significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail." In the case of the New York Times article, called "She Was Given a Deadline, but Married on Her Own Terms" for anyone interesting, that is not the case. Nowhere in the article is the school discussed directly or in detail. It's just named dropped in paragraph's about their dance coach getting married. In fact, the school is only mentioned once by name to say she coached there for 20 years. In no way does a single name drop pass WP:GNG. Nor does an article where that is the source that the topics notability supposedly hinges on. Nothing against the user, but Nsk92 has contributed similarly un-usable sources to AfDs about schools. So, I suggest that sources by them be reviewed to make sure they actually pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG instead of just taking the existence of the sources at face value. Really, people should be reviewing the sources to make sure they follow the guidelines anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment/Keep I appreciate the points made by @Nsk92. This school has coverage not only in USA Today, but NY Times as well. Why would you nominate this article for deletion when it clearly demonstrates notability? Dswitz10734 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, please see the comments I made to Nsk92.  Hun ter  01:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete All the sources about this are local and or primary. Except for ones written by contributors of national outlets. Which the consensus is pretty clear are not reliable sources due to being on par with self-published material. Which, I guess would qualify them as primary also. So, article fails the notability guidelines due to it not being discussed in multiple in-depth, non-local, "reliable" sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There were quite a few sources about the school in a historical newspapers.com search. I've added the first few I've found into the article. It should pass WP:GNG easily, and we don't delete schools we can write an article on just because they haven't received more than local coverage, otherwise there would be a dearth of school articles. Interestingly, the school hasn't been as well-covered recently, so not surprised a google search alone wouldn't demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided indicate that the article meets general notability guidelines. The article also meets WP:NGO because of the scandal involving the dance coach that was covered in the New York Times. The WP:NGO guideline specifically states that scandals are a valid reason for inclusion if they are covered in independent sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Skorpions13256- @Adamant- for notability no, thats not the system. For a reference within an article thats good editing practice.ClemRutter (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's not "the system" for notability? I directly quoted the notability guidelines. Going by your keep comments in this and other school related AfDs, it seems as though you don't know what your talking about when it comes to the guidelines and that your just voting keep in all of them because your irritated by AfDs about schools for some reason. Not due to them actually being notable or anything along those lines. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The thread above lists plenty of credible sources for the margin of notability required for this to be an article on Wikipedia. Comm260 ncu (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:36, 6 December 2020 (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.