Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Del Mar Academy


 * 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. Cerebellum (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Del Mar Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to meet the organization notability guidelines or general notability. Googling this brings up few results other than the school's website(and some other schools with a similar name) Given the username of the page creator(the same name as the school) page seems intended to be promotional(though not to the degree of a speedy deletion) 331dot (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as these specific schools are never found to actually be notable, let alone for their own article. SwisterTwister   talk  04:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not just a secondary school, but a more general educational facility(18 mos. up to 11th grade) The page says little more than this school exists, and was created by someone from the school. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only being a secondary school does not make it not a secondary school! Strange statement. Proof of existence is enough for articles on secondary schools to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How is its existence notable? There also seems to be a promotional element here.  331dot (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which summarises the consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as a verified secondary school, per longstanding consensus as described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America1000 15:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So one entry in a directory website is enough for this school to merit a page, without any indication about something about this school being notable? That page you cite (which is not a policy) states "independent sources" plural. I also think that the promotional aspect here is being glossed over; this page was created by someone from the school.  331dot (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to support the notion that accredited secondary schools are worthy of being covered in English Wikipedia. North America1000 02:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what is notable about the mere existence of this school or accredited schools in general(the page does not discuss its accreditation) but even if I did, this page was created by the school, likely for promotional purposes. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing whatsoever promotional about the article, so I fail to see your problem. It is consensus on Wikipedia that secondary schools should have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's promotional in that it was created by someone from the school so that when the school is googled it will pop on the results and direct people to their website; it appears on the first page of results that I get. That should matter as a conflict of interest. I get that secondary schools generally merit articles(though it is not a policy or guideline) and are somehow notable for their mere existence, but shouldn't the article consist of more than "this school exists"? 331dot (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's only "promotional" if it's clearly an advert. How on earth that stub (and stubs are perfectly acceptable) could be considered an advert is beyond me. All it does is provide basic information. There is nothing unacceptable about this article and it's pointless trying to claim that there is. You were obviously unaware that there is a consensus that secondary school articles are generally kept; that's fair enough, but now you do know, please just accept it and move on. The consensus is a very long-established one, has been discussed umpteen times and still stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't know what I was aware of and what I wasn't; I already said that I get SCHOOLOUTCOMES and that secondary schools generally get articles, which I will say again is not a policy or guideline, but something that occurs generally. There is exceptions for everything. This is clearly an advertisement to me, just as if I read it in a business or school directory. It doesn't have to say "Openings available now! Call 555-1234".  If we differ on what promotional is, then so be it, and I respect that- but I'm not just making this up due to some unawareness you think I have. I also think that this article should say more than "it exists" even if its mere existence is enough in terms of notability. I'm not trying to force you to reply, and feel free not to- but this is how I feel. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I was assuming good faith. If you were aware of the consensus then I assumed you wouldn't be clogging up AfD with unnecessary nominations! By your definition of an advertisement, I assume any article on an existing organisation or institution could be considered an advertisement! Maybe we should delete them all... -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the organization creates it themselves, maybe. I've seen many articles created where the creator worked for the organization and claimed they were creating it 'just to provide information' deleted as promotional, that weren't blatant advertisements.  I'd love to hear why the creator made this article, but they haven't returned to defend it(or even attempt to be unblocked for their username violation), possibly after seeing the promotional warnings on their talk page.  Whatever happens, I honestly thank you for this conversation. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:HEY would not apply because day schools, as past AfDs have shown are not independently notable, only high schools or colleges & universities are since they are a significant degree-awarding school, day schools are not. Thus, the listed sources are simply expected and trivial news stories about them, that itself would not compromise otherwise given the numerous past AfDs which explicitly stated "Day schools are not independently notable". SwisterTwister   talk  01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per longstanding WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES consensus to keep verifiable secondary (American: "high",) schools.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about the conflict of interest of the page creator, who is associated with the school and essentially posted a directory listing, likely to promote the school? Does that not matter?  331dot (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not very much. The question here is always whether sources and policies support notability.  For-profit businesses promoted by PR professionals on Wikiepdia are a real problem, and self-promoting wannabe singers, actors etc. are a huge headache.   but when a secondary school does this, or a professional organization like the Australasian Tunnelling Society, I personally just wish they wold read our guidelines and do a better job of it.  This school, for example, probably has more RS sourcing that school staff and alumni would know about. I'm hoping for WP:RS improvements over time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response. Thank you 331dot (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2016 (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.