Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grange P-12 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Grange P-12 College

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page sounds like a promotional piece written by someone close to the subject, a school in Hoppers Crossing (AU). Beauty School Dropout (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia generally keeps public school entries and it has a few reliable sources. Unless Wikipedia reverses it informal/formal policy, keep the article.Knox490 (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. If your concern is WP:PROMO, edit to remove the promotional aspects of the article per WP:DEL-CONTENT. This is only a WP:DEL-REASON when the article is "without any relevant or encyclopedic content." Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  Redirect Keep to Hoppers_Crossing,_Victoria There was a break from previous consensus regarding notability of schools in February. Where the relevant point would be that secondary schools are no longer presumed to be notable simply because they exist.   (See  for more) Regarding sources - of the four in the current article three were written prior to the schools creation in 1993.  Those may be reliable sources but they aren't coverage of the school.  The other source is a report prepared for the school. Perhaps reliable. It's not evidence of notability when someone produces a report you've requested. Currently no independent coverage by reliable sources.  Given the current sources and the little found in searching for more this school fails both GNG and WP:ORG.  Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Changed to keep given sources identified by Kb.au. Gab4gab (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Written up in a journal, no question of its legitimate existence. PR issues can be fixed, better sourcing is available.  It's not like this school is in Africa, China or India, where decent sources are not available.  So keep per guidelines, WP:ORG and the longstanding consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. John from Idegon (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Gab4gab (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regarding the above comment, the RfC last February said no such thing. The ONLY thing it said is that SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot be used as the sole argument to keep in a deletion discussion.  That's all.  WP:NSCHOOL, which is part and parcel of ORG, states that meeting GNG is enough.  It's a fair assumption that any school in a city of 150,000 is going to meet GNG, given enough digging. Your acknowledgement that there is enough to merit a redirect, IMO is tantamount to saying there is enough to keep.  However, I do acknowledge that the journal source is a bit of a ruse, so I've struck part of my vote. John from Idegon (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your version of what it said is a bit off. Really it said almost exactly what I said. In addition it said not to use SCHOOLOUTCOMES as an argument (without your sole qualifier) at Afd. Your comment that a redirect implies a keep is a rather silly.  Still we're all free to ignore the RFC and behave as if it never happened. To help you out here is the nutshell closing of the RFC:
 * Keep - we have a long  standing  consensus to  keep  such  school  articles (which  the, a relatively new user,  may  not  be aware of), as evidenced by  1,000s of school  AfD closures. I  see no  reason  to  delete this 10-year  old article, well  written, and no  COPYVIOs. If the many  regular and experienced editors  who  have contributed to  it  over the years have not  seen fit  to  bring  it  to AfD, then I think it's not  necessary  now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you are all correct. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I didn't even see convincing statement from nominator for deletion and any promotional content can of course, be removed by anybody, any time. It is verifiable school and has some academic print sources which are not easily accessible. It needs cleanup and refimprove tag, although.–Ammarpad (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant ongoing coverage in local paper Wyndham Weekly. Was covered in The Age in relation to a situation involving an affair with a student. Covered in the Herald Sun in relation to school funding. Covered in the Wyndham Leader, on ABC RN's Law Report, in The Age, and the Huffington Post in relation to employing an in-house lawyer. Received coverage from various Australian Indian-community media in relation to its Indian celebrations. Meets the notability bar for secondary schools. Quality of the article and state of its sourcing does not determine notability. Kb.au (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2018 (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.