Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eumemmerring College


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Perhaps not all high schools are notable but consensus appears to be that this one is. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Eumemmerring College

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

I originally proposed deletion of this page, which was disputed. I am henceforth bringing it to AFD. The school in question no longer exists as an entity. The website is no longer accessible and it's entry has been removed from the schools registry. The page contains nothing of historical or encyclopedic value, IMO. Thanks. — Manti  core  02:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Once notable, always notable. All high schools are notable, whether or not they still exist. The claim that the school was the "3rd largest school in Australia" adds to the school's notability. See this Google News archive search for lots and lots of references. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep not all high schools are notable, but one of this size and level of news coverage is. "no longer exists as an entity" is not a proper deletion rationale --- notability is not temporary, Roman Empire, etc. cab (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Whether or not high schools are automatically notable (which is debated), it's custom and practice that high schools are very rarely deleted on Wikipedia.  As for the rest, Eastmain and CaliforniaAliBaba are correct.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: While there is no specific policy mandating the notability of High Schools, and those policy disputes are ongoing, I would argue that would be a simple and pragmatic decision to decide that Eumemmerring College is notable, were it still operating. I would argue that the issue to be decided in this AfD is about notability of a previously notable but now defunct High School, or - in short - "It was notable then, is it notable now?" --Shirt58 (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was ever notable, then it's notable forever. Wikipedia does, and should, contain all sorts of information on subjects of purely historical importance.  See WP:NTEMP.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the school was split into four high schools on each of its four campuses and it is a key part of the history of each of the new schools. There is still plenty of material available on the web to verify the content e.g. here and I note that it has been rated the best secondary college in Australia, here. TerriersFan (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This argument that all high schools are notable (and inherent notability as a concept) is bogus and continually repeating it does not make not make it any more true. High schools, like any other entity, should meet WP:N and there is no evidence that this school does. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - whether or not you consider that high schools are notable this school clearly meets WP:N. If you carry out a Google search you will find plenty of reliable, independent sources. In addition being considered the best school in Australia is a clear claim to notability and there is a further claim that this is the richest school in Victoria, here. TerriersFan (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep First of all, this HS is notable by any reasonable standard. Second, the general argument is not that all HSs are notable, but that all high schools are considered notable at Wikipedia, precisely to avoid the problems of debating each one individually to weed out a few percent.  Almost always sources can in fact be located with enough digging. in local print sources--and, given Google News Archive, this will continue to get easier.This has been a stable compromise for over a year now. Stubbornness in denying this working consensus is getting a little pointy. DGG (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2009 (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.