Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girraween 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Girraween High School
Non-notable high school TJ Spyke 00:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC) *Please note: WP:SCHOOLS has been rejected as a policy, so please no not base your votes on that and consider changing your vote if you based it on WP:SCHOOLS. More precisely, User:JoshuaZ added a "rejected" tag to WP:SCHOOLS at 19:46, 29 October 2006. I am not certain that adding the tag at this time was appropriate. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note to closing administrator: There has been criticism of those who have supported retention of this article who have made reference to WP:SCHOOLS, an effort to create clear objective standards for which school articles should be retained, and which should be deleted. While the guideline did not achieve consensus, it is light years ahead of any other guideline, and stands in stark contrast to the utter lack of any meaningful Wikipedia guideline used by school deletion voters, who have resorted elsewhere to rather insightful "arguments" for deletion, such as "Secondary school, ergo not notable" or "Delete all schools below the university level" or "a random public high school", with the helpful suggestion that redirecting from the schools "to really offensive sex acts" would be an acceptable alternative. It's time that we stopped the staggering waste of time playing AfD Roulette, in which nearly every single high school article (with minimal exceptions) with any meaningful content is retained, demonstrating a clear consensus and explicit precedent for retaining such articles. I recognize that there are those who prefer some arbitrarily high standard for retaining such articles, but unfortunately we have no consensus on these self-imposed made-up standards, let alone anything that approaches the comprehensive, good faith effort to do so at WP:SCHOOLS. If WP:SCHOOLS is unsatisfactory, let's see an alternative standard that will achieve consensus in the community, or even the faintest evidence of an attempt at achieving such a consensus guideline. Alansohn 17:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

*Weak keep - at least one alumna (is that the feminine?) is notable, regardless of the fact I wish she wasn't. Independent sources should be scared up at some point, but I'd say it gets over the proposed WP:SCHOOL as is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per precedent on high schools. Grutness...wha?  00:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Even following the rejection of the policy cited in my original rationale (regardless of its misrepresentation later on in the discussion), I still incline towards a weak keep, due to its status as a selective (and therefore harder-to-get-into) school and the fact that at least one former student went on to bigger and better things. It's barely a step above the average school, but that near-step is enough for me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good thing I didn't change my vote based on the pretend-rejection of the policy, then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google News Archives confirms the claim about Jana Pittman see
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 00:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Highschools have been deemed notable by consensus. Resolute 00:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that nothing in WP:SCHOOL says that. I have to disagree with the statement that all high schools are notable, because they are not. TJ Spyke 00:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said they are notable per WP:SCHOOL, I said they had been deemed notable per consensus. There are probably 100 AfDs that reflect this. Resolute 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a "selective" high school, rather than a regular one. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Stubbify get rid of unverified information, and cite only reliable sources. If it remains a stub for a couple of months, merge to the appropriate suburb. Andjam 01:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable enough to me. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. As mentioned above, the school has notable alumni like Jana Pittman.-- TBC Φ  talk?  03:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. Yawn. -- Necrothesp 03:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you even read WP:SCHOOL? It says POST-Secondary schools are notable. I can't believe a non-notable school is getting so many keep votes. I guess it's true, the problem with giving people the right to choose is that sometimes they make the wrong choices. TJ Spyke 03:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, first of all WP:SCHOOL is a proposed guideline. Learn and understand the difference and don't attempt to quote it as established policy and expect to be taken seriously. Second, as should be obvious, many people do believe that all secondary schools are notable, and given the fact that most such articles are kept, they appear to be in the majority. May I suggest that you remember that your opinion is just that, an opinion. Because it's yours does not make it correct. We are all entitled to our opinions, and because you disagree does not make us wrong. -- Necrothesp 14:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't quite say that. What is says is that a school may warrant a separate article if it verifiably meets one of a series of criteria. It would be worthy of "comprehensive coverage" if it's a post-secondary school or part of a series on a particular school district (I assume "comprehensive coverage" means "an article the size of those we have on the major universities of the world"). Given that it verifiably meets the criterion of having a notable alumna (Jana Pittman), that may explain some of the keep votes. Not all, mind you, but certainly some. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability asserted to students does not assert notability to school.-- Hús  ö  nd  03:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. WP:SCHOOL isn't policy, and is possibly too vague if it allows this sort of argument all the time, but it's all we have in terms of objective criteria for schools and there's certainly sufficient leeway there to say that having a famous athlete graduate gets the school over the line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your disagreement but I maintain my position. When (if) WP:SCHOOL becomes a policy, I will abid by the criteria consensually established therein. Until then, I think that my argument is as valid as the familiar and antagonistic "all schools are inherently notable".-- Hús  ö  nd  04:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair cop. At least we both agree that "all schools are inherently notable" is a bad idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair cop. At least we both agree that "all schools are inherently notable" is a bad idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, I think notability is a bit thin on the ground here, but it might just, and only just, fall over the line. Lankiveil 05:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Weak Keep I agree with Lankiveil it is just short of falling notable, but it is just notable enough to keep. Hello32020 11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Since WP:SCHOOL has been rejected as a policy, we need to go back to the core policies, WP:notability and WP:RS. This article, as it presently stands, fails that test. No reliable source has been presented independently establishing the school's (as distinct from an alumna's) notability. School publications are cited, but we can't use them -- we have to ignore them -- because an organization's own communication organs are not independent evidence of notability. They aren't reliable sources for this purpose, just as the school's own website isn't a reliable source for the school's notability. Find multiple independent media publications that mention the school and we've met the bare minimum criteria. Otherwise, we haven't and we have to delete. For an organization like a school, we should expect the proponents to take the initiative and provide evidence of notability, as the policy requires. I suggest the school's proponents look for evidence of notability in regular publications if there is any, cite them on the article, and bring them to the attention of this discussion, and quickly. --Shirahadasha 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:N and WP:RS are not core policies. They're not policies at all, as a matter of fact.  JYolkowski // talk 23:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - where has this policy been rejected? I agree that WP:SCHOOL is flawed, but I can't seem to find any mention on the page that it's actually been canned.  Lankiveil 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Right on the front page of WP:SCHOOLS. It says "This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so" TJ Spyke 05:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - A selective high school, and thuse the subject of fierce entrance examinations - DYK that parents send their kids for weekend coaching to get into this school. PArt from that, there have been guys from this school who were chosen for national selection camps for the Australian team for International Chemistry Olympiad, etc,...although there are no news reports for that...and it comes from teh back of my head...but they are doing well.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a common argument, which I'm very reluctant to accept. I think that we should separate the waters: if there are notable alumni from this school, then we should have articles about them and their notable achievements, not their schools. I can't also regard the fact of this school being selective as notability. There's thousands of selective schools and that is really no big deal. Besides, if we were to keep only elitist schools then it would pretty much turn Wikipedia into a vehicle for advertising those institutions, while at the same time discriminating other not-so-selective schools. -- Hús  ö  nd  18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - Well, it's a government enforced selective school, so they aren't just making it up. For most schools the median graduation rank is over 90 - It's not like some random school just declared themselves "elite". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote it, and where the material is:
 * Comment. There seems to be some misunderstanding about whether a school's own website is a reliable source of information. In fact, WP:RS states:


 * relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
 * not contentious;
 * not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
 * about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

On that basis, a school's website can be a useful source of information. Sometimes school administrators lie or try to cover things up, but in general the enrolment figures or the history of the school are likely to be described accurately if incompletely on the site. (By "incompletely", I mean that a school's own history may ignore or gloss over past misconduct by students, teachers or administrators that may be relevant.) --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cribcage 06:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I was going to give up on voting down non-notable high schools, but WP:SCHOOLS has been rejected and it seemed to be the only thing making these articles the least bit legitimate. There are thousands of high schools in the US alone and when you take in all secondary schools across the globe (can't even imagine how many there are in India or China, for example) do we really need to have articles for all of them?  This is not a directory, we don't have articles for every hospital, every business, every police station, etc. nor do we need them for all high schools.  High schools are are relatively the same and Wikipedia is not the proper source to look up there differences.  Certainly, there are going to be some (very few) exceptions, but this isn't one of them. --The Way 08:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable high school with 500+ students. bbx 09:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, why on Earth would somebody want to delete this article? This school is a part of the pride of the New South Wales education system and is home to hundreds of students, thier parents, staff and even the local neighbourhood surrounding the school. How can someone be so blatantly ignorant to no see this. May I mention that a few valuable editors like Phanatical went to and some are still at this school. If this page is deleted they'll be betrayed and we might lose valuable help. Strong keep dosen't describe how much this article should be kept, it should be more something like super strong keep or something. Also, TJ Spyke did you not also want to delete the article for Morristown West High School as well? All schools are notable and if you don't agree to that, maybe you (I'm talking about all those anti-school editors) should stop worrying about schools on Wikipedia altogether. What if someone wanted to find a neutral source of information on a particular school but found that page was deleted. Result: Person does not trust Wikipedia anymore and tells everyone he/she knows not to trust Wikipedia. Surely that can't be good. Atlantis Hawk 09:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, is there any reason to assume that the deletion of an article on a school would result in editors from that school packing up and leaving the project? Deletion of an article on a subject dear to someone's heart is hardly a "betrayal", regardless of what some contributors might want to claim at various times, and neither is a hypothetical betrayal of a group of editors particularly likely to see them leave en masse. As far as the claim that "all schools are notable", that isn't something that's been determined by consensus - flawed as it was and rejected as it is, WP:SCHOOLS was an attempt to codify exactly which schools were notable, and it certainly didn't result in every single school being deemed notable by a long way. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep In general, High schools are inherently notable, this one is such a school. -- Librarianofages 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Verifiable notability asserted. Barely. AKAF 15:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a thorough, complete and well-constructed article for a secondary school, with explicit and verifiable claims of noatbility. This is a perfect template to be used as aprt of the process of creating articles for each and every high school in the English-speaking world (I haven't yet found an appropriate model for Chinese schools). If we waste all this time on fruitless AfDs for secondary schools, we'll only be further delayed in creating articles for every such school. Alansohn 17:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the more time I waste in AFDs like this, the more it spurs me to create new school articles to help redress the balance. Kappa 01:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per the many above.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Has possibly notable alumni. JoshuaZ 18:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the arguments listed above!! Audiobooks 20:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * — Possible single purpose account: Audiobooks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Keep - and for a very good reason, at that too. This school has produced notable alumni, so it's obviously noteworthy for this reason. The reference to Jana Pittman proves this article should be kept. SunStar Net 23:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. An extensive, informative article that could almost serve as a model for the genre. Has had input from many editors over the last 12 months. That far outweighs a four word deletion nomination. --JJay 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, tedious and unverified article about a non-notable school. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, important to its local community, and being a selective school which evokes fierce competition, important to a wider area as well. Not really helpful to merge a substantial article like this one. Kappa 01:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't even see a clear assertion of notability for the school in the article. There is certainly no use of independent sources that are reliable to establish any notability.  We can't have an article that simultaneously adheres to WP:V and WP:NPOV without independent reliable sources.  These are policies, so deletion is required.  GRBerry 03:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If Reliable Sources were added to the article backing up the claim to fame that Jana Pittman attended (frankly, I'm surprised they've not been added yet), would that be enough? I'm guessing from the rest of your rationale that it wouldn't, but it's always handy to know these things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have to see the sources that are hypothesized to give a definitive answer. My general belief is that the sources would need to contain significant discussion of the school itself.  If they had some discussion of its affect on her life, that might merit inclusion in the article on her.  But I am a firm non-believer in notability by association, so merely having a notable person that went to a school (or married another person) does not make that school (or spouse) notable.  GRBerry 13:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is demonstrated within the article and meets the proposed WP:SCHOOLS as well.  Yamaguchi先生 03:43, 1 November 2006
 * deleteیا چیٹنگ میں اردو زبان کا سہادہ لیتی ھے پر عربی رسم الخط میں لکھنے سے قاصر ھے، لھزا رومن رسم الخط کا سھارا لیا جاتا ھے۔اور اس بات کی امید کرنا بیوقوفی ھے کہ ھماری عوام آسان رومن رسم الخط کو چھوڑ کے مشکل اردو رم الخ کو اپناۓ گی۔ نتیجہ یہ نکلے گا کہ آج سے دس سال پعر کمپیوٹر اور انٹرنیٹ کی دنیا میں اردو کی حیثیت ایک معمولی زبان کی ھو گی۔ اور نئ نسل انگریزی زبان پہ اور زیادہ منحصر ھو جائیگی۔ اور یہ مسائل پاکستان کی دوسری زبانوں (پنجابی، سنرھی، پشتو، بلوچی، سرائیکی، کشمیری) کو بھی درپیش ھیں۔ ھمیں چاھیے کہ ھم زبان کو بچانے کی سعی کریں، نہ کہ رسم الخط سے محبت کے چکر میں زبان کو نقصان پہنچا بیٹھیں۔ ویسے بھی عوام تو رومن رسم WP:SCHOOLSالخط کو کمپیوٹر کی حد تک قبول کر ھی چکے ھیں، اب ھمارا فرض بنتا ھے کہ ھم باقاعدہ رومن رسم الخط کی توضیح کریں۔ ورنہ عوام اردو الفاظ کے بے تکے رومن متبادل تو و‌‌‍‍ضح کر ھی چکے ھیں‍‌، جیسے جیسے وہ ذہنوں میں راسخ ھوں گے زبان کا اور نقصان ھوگا۔ میری گزارش ھے کہ ویکیپیڈیا پہ ہر صفحے کا ایک رومن متبادل ھو۔ اردو کے رومن حروف تہجی میں اپنی فہم ناقص کے مطابق ترتیب دے چکا ھوں۔ جو حضرات اس سلسلے میں میری معاونت کرنا چاھیں، بندہ ھر ممکن تعاون اور رہنمائ کو تیار ھے۔ آپ کے خیالات جاننے کا متمنی ھوں۔ (سید فیاض عباس) Teresa Isaac 04:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What on Earth did that mean? Atlantis Hawk 04:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It means that she has a sense of humor. :-) -- Hús  ö  nd  05:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that real Persian? Babelfish doesn't support translation for Persion so I can't check. TJ Spyke 05:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (OT) I believe it's Arabic and it also appears on User_talk:Fayyazabbas.—Pengo talk · contribs 21:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (Further OT) - pretty sure it's Persian, myself. There's a letter gaaf in there a couple of times and I think I see a peh or two, both of which are Persian-specific letters. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you have some justification for the claim that highschools are inherently notable? Keep in mind that under precedents, not even countries are inherently notable. JoshuaZ 22:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not even countries are inherently notable? Atlantis Hawk 07:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to nominate Equatorial Guinea for a while - one or two swimmers do not a notable country make. Andjam 12:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Guinea and Equatorial Guinea, I'd delete them both. And why not toss in Guyana for that matter. What on earth does a story about someone trying to delete countries have to do with high schools? Besides wouldn't the more relevant precedent -- the fact that about 99% of all high school articles with any meaningful content survive AfDs -- justify retention of this and all such articles, based on precedent? Alansohn 12:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, the deleted countries have generally been microstates with only one or two inhabitants - the point remains that if even countries don't get inherent notability it is hard to see how schools (which generally lie within countries) should. Furthermore, surviving AfD is very different than being kept. The AfDs frequently close with no consensus and are even occasionally deleted. This is despite the fact that the keeps sometimes result from borderline votestacking. Furthermore, precedent is by itself a very weak argument for keeping something - there is nothing wrong with revisiting it when necessary. JoshuaZ 16:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So if I understand correctly, precedent is that any microschools with one or two students should be deleted, but larger schools should be retained. And if precedent is "a very weak argument" for retention, why would you just use it to justify deletion? I agree that issues should be revisited, but we seem to be revisiting these issues two or three times each day, and the precedent that we're setting is that high school articles with a bare minimum of content are kept as a matter of course. If you look through most AfDs, the overwhelming majority of articles are deleted, often based on the votes of a relatively small number of individuals who spend much of their day participating in such AfDs, deciding if articles meet their own personal preferences. And while your general opposition to most such articles may lead you to see votestacking, what I see is that the fact that schools generate so much strong interest, with substantial numbers of people taking the time to vote for their retention, is evidence of broad support for schools. Alansohn 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My point was that if precedent matters then one has the issue that not even countries are inherently notable. Once we have gotten to the point that entities are not inherently notable, Librarians above claim fails and therefore would require at minimum more justification. As for the votestacking issue, even at least one user in favor of keeping schools in general User:Forbidden Word, thinks that it is votestacking as well (only he seems to see that as a good thing). That schools are continually being AfDed would indicate at minimum that that there is a substantial minority which disagrees with the process. Indeed, when non-school editors comment on a school AfD they are more likely to go with deletion than retention, indicating that the prevailing consensus among Wikipedians is not to keep all these schools. JoshuaZ 17:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good grief, your last sentence is one hell of a leap of logic! Incidentally, I'm not entirely sure how you're defining votestacking here. Is that anyone who registers a vote you don't agree with? Because I see the same names voting for deletion on pretty much every school AfD as well as the same names voting for retention. Therefore if anyone is votestacking, the deleters are doing it every bit as much as the keepers, except they're demonstrably not getting so much support. -- Necrothesp 18:30, 2 November 2006 (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.