Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Hill 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. X clamation point  00:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Chester Hill High School

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:SCHOOLS Michellecrisp (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * strong keep Not sure how nom concludes a High School fails WP:SCHOOLS; high schools are basically assumed notable. And, just in case there's any issue over RS etc., the School News Archive has as it's first article a report on an event at the school where "Governor Marie Bashir" gave a speech. That's Governor of New South Wales, by the way, not a school governor. I think if the head of state of an administrative region with a population of nearly seven million bothers to attend a school's flag day, that school probably is notable. MadScot (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide this information in the article. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. It'd be nice to have the 2008 version reported of course .... but that should do for now. MadScot (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep obviously; not only a high school but sources are available that meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see that Michellecrisp had just removed a sourced contribution. Incidents are perfectly valid additions to a school page. If concerned take it to the school talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is appalling; Michellecrisp has just removed the preceding comment; the status of the sources is entirely relevant to the deletion discussion. Sourced content should remain until evaluated by other editors. TerriersFan (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * simply being sourced content is not sufficient enough a reason for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. see WP:NOT. otherwise every incident, like a train delay or every crime. reported in the media would be up on Wikipedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the purpose of an AfD is to enable the broadest discussion; removing comments as here, because that you consider them insufficiently relevant, is not the way to go. Secondly, because you consider sourced content is inappropriate is not a reason to delete; it should remain for evaluation by uninvolved editors. This is particularly important when you have AfD'd a page. TerriersFan (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * the incident is not the reason to delete this page. far from it, I'm disputing the inclusion and notability of that incident. Please respond to my query on the talk page. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to your wish to delete the page but your removal of sourced content here. TerriersFan (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've provided my justification of that edit on the Talk Page. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and on this we must agree to differ. Naturally, to AGF I accept your reasons for the content removal. However, the point that I am making is that it is not good practice to AfD a page on the grounds of lack of sources and then remove sources on a narrow interpretation of policy. TerriersFan (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment A Google news search reveals very limited coverage in the media. If this is a notable school it would have some degree of third party coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —TerriersFan (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Cunard (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per MadScot and Terriers Fan. The reference found by MadScot definitely shows that this high school is notable. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pretty well all High Schools will have references that meet out notability guideline and this certainly does. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This will almost certainly be kept per precedent but I share Michelle's general concern about inserting any random mention found in google into school articles in an effort to meet the primary criterion of WP:N regardless of their appropriateness or non-encyclopedic nature. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORG and WP:NOT due to the lack of sources about the school having any particular significance - notability isn't inherited from the State's Governor visiting once (Australian state governors are unelected figureheads of little real importance, and spend most of their time visiting schools, opening festivals, presenting awards and the like) and the other news is totally routine and not sufficent to meet the guidelines. WP:SCHOOLS failed to obtain consensus and is a failed proposal by the way. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Major public educational institution. All enduring publicly-funded institutions are inherently verifiable and notable. The deletion of a cited reference from this article by Michellecrisp during the AfD process is deeply troubling. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see anything wrong with removing trivia and WP:NOT violations at any time. The fact that some of the people in the schools project argue that stuff like that establishes the notability of schools demonstrates that they're on pretty shaky ground by arguing that high schools are automatically notable (a concept which has never won anything resembling consensus support). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Gene Poole says "All enduring publicly-funded institutions are inherently verifiable and notable". That is not what WP:ORG says. And I've participated in many deletion discussions where school articles have been deleted, so the argument doesn't stack up. Also there is no evidence that this is a "Major public educational institution", if it was a Google news search would have revealed much more. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - although it seems this article was made by a student of the school, this article shows heaps of potential. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is missing principle's last name. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - As a secondary school, there are a number of alternatives to deletion, including expansion, tagging the article for improvement, or at least redirecting to its school district. In my opinion, the deletion of reliably sourced material is a problem in a deletion discussion because Reliable sources is one of the primary reasons for deletion. Whether or not that material is random, appropriate, or non-encyclopedic should be left for editors at an Afd to decide for themselves. WP:ORG and WP:NOT are listed, but I do not see where it says high schools do not meet those guidelines, or that a high school must be listed a certain number of times at Google News. Simply put, I believe the article can be fixed through normal editing, and is therefore not a good candidate for deletion. --Jh12 (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT was listed in response to the inclusion of one news article which reported that molotov cocktails were once found at the school. I don't believe this was worthy of inclusion in a school article and did not add to the notability of the subject. Other more appropriate material has been added since I nominated this article. Also, there is of course no rule about number of times it comes up in Google news search, but it indicates this school has received very limited coverage in third party reporting.Michellecrisp (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, regarding single incidences which occur, there is a duty for us as editors to be responsible in our coverage, as Wikipedia is a top-10 website. Orderinchaos 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I know that some people don't like it, but darn it high schools are notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Bad Faith Nomination Nominating user is censoring and removing comments in the AFD that don't go his/her way in an effort to skew this AFD's discussion in their favor. The nomination has an extremely weak rationale. Notability of subject has been established. An administrator needs to get this user in check immediately. SashaNein (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, I only see one removal of content by the nom (this), which was clearly marked with an edit summary, and was justified in my view. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a bad faith nom, and I would suggest that if you're going to make such claims in the future that you bring some actual evidence to the table.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep per MadScot and others.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Schools are notable. WP:SCHOOLS is a failed proposal. SunCreator (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm aware that WP:SCHOOLS is a failed proposal but it gives some indication of what makes a school notable. Schools are not automatically notable, as I've seen a number of school articles deleted in recent months on WP. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In the absence of WP:SCHOOLS (which failed to gain endorsement for, among other reasons, strong opposition to repeated attempts to include a statement that high schools are automatically notable) WP:ORG applies to school articles, so the nomination is OK. It would be helpful if the editors supporting keeping the article would explain how it meets the criteria at WP:ORG rather than just state that they happen to think that high schools are notable. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the first three keep !votes pointed to sources to secondary coverage of a non-trivial nature - the school is the subject of the articles in question - which would appear to pretty much meet WP:ORG even if no credit is given for being a high school. MadScot (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could you please link to the AfD discussions where high schools have been deleted in recent months? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This was not a bad faith nomination (I'm totally in disagreement with one or two above on this) and schools are not inherently notable - however, in Australia independent and reliable sources exist which would, on the basis of WP:N, give public high schools in metropolitan areas sufficient notability to pass AfD. (The same does not usually apply to public primary schools, where non-self-published sources may simply tell us it exists and little else.) Editors should be careful to avoid crufting up such articles and any editor can remove unsourced content, original research or unencyclopaedic content, but that is a matter for maintenance, not deletion. Orderinchaos 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this; the nomination was definitely made in good faith, and I may have even supported a merge/redirect. However, the material removed was nothing resembling the list found at SCFT. This was a security incident that was reported in the The Daily Telegraph (Australia). While on follow-up research, the incident appears to be minor and removal is appropriate, removing that information in the middle of a deletion discussion by the nominator is not the best way to go about doing things. A single brief mention of a security upgrade at Jakarta International School led me to a multitude of sources describing the history and security of the school. While the section I wrote at Jakarta_International_School is far from high quality, I believe it is certainly appropriate information for any article about the school. There isn't anyway to tell unless the proper research is done. --Jh12 (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed that incident because it in itself does not add to the notability of the school or the removal of this info was intended to further my case for deletion. Definitely not true. It seemed to me that someone in trying to find some sources for the school, did a google search and added (in good faith) the first newspaper article they saw. My own search of news articles revealed it was only reported once in the Telegraph article, so it did not get substantial media coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per my essay: Notability (high schools).  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There are adequate secondary sources for a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article and those are the content policies. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Nick Dowling's reasoning above - no indication that this school is any more notable than any other high school. While secondary coverage exists, it all seems to be routine sort of stuff, nothing that in my mind establishes notability.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment. There is no requirement in policy or guidelines that article subjects should be more notable than others of their type. Notability is decided on the subject's own merits, not by comparison with others. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply, there is a requirement however that the coverage be nontrivial. As pointed out above, having a figurehead like Marie Bashir visit the school once is hardly something that confers notability.  Indeed, I doubt there are very many schools in Australia that haven't been visited by a state governor at some point.  Show me some non-trivial, non-routine coverage, and I'll retract the above statement.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
 * reply Non trivial relates to coverage not being a passing mention, or being extremely thin. So, for example, had the article been about the Governor's daily routine, and the school was just listed as a place she went - that's trivial. Instead, the article is about the school, and the coverage is trivial with respect to the governor, not the school. MadScot (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I still believe practically any of the alternatives to deletion for a school article would be superior, particularly merge/redirect. Having said that, I have added some of the research I have found on this school, including a special commendation from the New South Wales Department of Education and Training, a mention of its Intensive English Centre, and significant security upgrades to the institution. --Jh12 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to be a well written and encyclopedic article to me that meets WP:N in citing multiple independent sources appropriately. While I respect that the nomination was in good faith; I really don't see the need for deletion. At the absolute worse a merge and re-direct could occur - but I don't see the need for that either. WP:NOTNEWS is important, but it is pretty clear in the article with the sources used that security deserves at least a mention. WP:NNC means that WP:N is mostly irrelevant to individual sections or sentences of an article (though WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR e.t.c are not), and content can be added which does not directly add to notability such as primary sources to add context. Only the article as a whole usually needs to meet WP:N, and I am quite confident this article does, like most high school articles should do. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:18, 2 November 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.