Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herschel Girls' 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. Geschichte (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Herschel Girls' School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This school doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. Looking over the sources in the article, the first is one sentence brief mention. The second is highly likely the same trivial amount of information to say they are connected to the Anglican church since the book is about religion and that's what it's being cited for. The third appears to be a trivial mention in something about a scientist who owned the land the school is built on. The forth is a travel guide, and last I checked travel guides aren't very (or at all) usable for notability because they way to inclusionist about things. As far as a BEFORE, there's a couple of name drops in two books. That appears to be it outside of the usual social network and alternative wiki links though. So, unless I'm missing something there's no significant coverage with in-depth information on the company in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Which means this doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG..For the sake of brevity, civility, and to follow the guidelines, discussion should be confined to the state of sources and how they (or don't) meet the relevant guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  15:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  15:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This is one of the most prestigious boarding schools in South Africa. The school building is historic, being associated with the famous scientist Herschel in the 19th century.  There's plenty of coverage in respectable sources such as books (see above) and so the article will be easy to flesh out and improve.  So, per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool if those things are the case. I'd be fine with the article being kept if there was in-depth coverage discussing any of that, but there isn't any. Saying something is notable simply because it's "one of the most prestigious whatever's in wherever" is clearly WP:AADD anyway. Not to mention it being associated with a "famous" (whatever that means) scientist is just trying to make it notable by inheritance. I'm rather at a lose as to why you have so much difficulty making guideline based arguments. It should be pretty easy to make them, yet you repeatedly fail to do so. It really doesn't appear that you know what your doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG and existing sourcing in the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not supprising vote really. Which specific sources in the article meet the notability guidelines? Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first sentence, apparently your request in the nomination to stick to discussion of sources was intended only for others, not yourself? For the second, since you've replied to every !vote here with effectively the same reply I can only point you to WP:BADGER and remind you that each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker. VQuakr (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So none of the sources do then huh? I could have just asked the question once and you still would have found an excuse not to answer it. Anyway, even if someone is committing WP:BADGER, which I'm not, it's still on you to make a clear evidence based justification for why the article should be kept. Which you didn't do. Also, other users are free to call other users out who have voted in a way that is disruptive to the process in AfDs repeatedly. Which both you and the other people I have responded to have clearly done. Again, that's not badgering. In no way am I trying to force my point of view on you by asking what yours is either. Which is what the whole point in WP:BADGER is. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is that no one is obligated to answer questions in a way that satisfies you. Also, your violations of WP:AGF appear habitual bordering on incessant. VQuakr (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's only the point because your other one about WP:BADGER was wrong and you needed something else to pivot to. Anyway, nowhere did I say or do anything to indicate I care if people answer me. Let alone in a way that would "satisfy me." However that is. You could have just not answered the question and I would have 100% fine with that. A matter of fact, I would have been more fine with it then I am with this back and forth. You don't see me screaming "ANSWER ME DAMN IT!!" to anyone I've asked the question to that hasn't replied yet do you? It's rather ironic your citing AGF when your the one ascribing negative intent to my question. So, who's really the one that's not AGF here? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets GNG per sources on the article and the presumption of local non indexed sources we should be assuming. That's the problem with the nominator's destructive tear through African schools. Sources do not have to be on the article or even indexed at Google. So, how much searching in Sourh Africa's libraries is part of the BEFORE? Per the GAZETTEER pillar of Wikipedia's purpose, all that we need to show is verified existence. What notability is on Wikipedia isn't defined by either RfCs or guidelines. It's defined by what is done right here at AfD, and generally, SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indicative. Secondary schools get kept, lower schools don't. 8.48.2.14 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "all that we need to show is verified existence." Exactly, and presuming sources exist that we don't have access to doesn't do that. Otherwise, any article could be kept based on your logic. Which contradicts itself anyway. Also, secondary schools aren't automatically kept due to SCHOOLOUTCOMES anymore. Which is a lot of the reason the supposedly "destructive tear" through African school articles is being done. Because a lot of them have never been notable and should be deleted now that the rules have changed to not keep bad articles. Thanks for characterizing my edits that way though. Blame the people who created the articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily passes WP:GNG based on the sourcing in the article alone, much less in a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which specific sources in the article and in a search pass WP:GNG? Because I was pretty thorough about it and couldn't find any. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Herschel was literally the top performing school in South Africa in 2019, and second in the country in 2020. I've added the references to the article to provide clear evidence of notability. Wikipedia needs users like Adamant1 to identify articles that don't have robust references to support notability, but please consider a notability tag as a first step rather than going straight to AfD. Humansdorpie (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's pretty well established that top list or best of type articles don't establish notability. Least of which being because 99% of the time they aren't in-depth. Which is a requirement. But there's other pretty good reasons they don't work besides that. Also, I add notability tags to articles all the time. Just not when I don't think the article can be improved enough to be notable like in this case. There's still no indication it is even with the "top list" sources you added either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per everyone here and feeling like the WP:SNOW is starting to fall. Obviously a completely notable school. And I ask that the BEFORE-failing nom please don't bother responding; I'm not changing my mind.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The South African Family Encyclopaedia looks like a good source. I also added a reference to a 2011 article from The Cape Argus. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I will say it again please read WP:BEFORE - you cannot solely rely on the sources in the article. "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." And I am calling BIAS. Its not as easy to find newspaper articles online as it is in the States or Europe. We're supposed to be building an inclusive encyclopedia not deleting everything relating to Africa Gbawden (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you not get about As far as a BEFORE in my nomination statement? Feel to call bias, I could really care less. At this point it's a played out trite line of attack that's its meaningless. Although, I will say your clearly being bias by calling foul in every articles you've voted in and by expecting Africa to have lower standards then everyone else. Google "the soft bigotry of low expectations", because that's exactly what your displaying. Also, in the last month I've nominated 18 articles that were related to Africa. 18 dude. Of which five didn't even get deleted. It's extremely damn hilarious that you think 13 articles is "deleting everything related to Africa." It's a continent with 1.2 billion people and 54 countries. 13 articles isn't even a drop in the bucket on the back of a molecule on the back of a flea on the back of an African Puma you...No one said Africa had to have the same journalistic standards as America or Europe either. 99% of the world doesn't and no one expects them to be America or Europe. No one gets triggered by articles related to those places being deleted or goes off about America's journalistic exceptionalism as an excuse to keep everything either. So go take out your fake outrage on someone else. Frankly, people who act like you do are an insult to Africa and African people who deserve to be treated equally to the rest of the world. Treat the continent like a stunted toddler that can't walk on your own time. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per the myriad keepers and for similar reasoning as that provided at the deletion discussion over at Parktown Boys' High School and the attempt to query the notability of Hilton College (South Africa). :) No. Just no. --DSQ  (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mind if I ask what the other articles have to do with this? Especially Hilton College (South Africa)? That wasn't even an AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Similar rationale applies, I just can't be bothered to repeat myself or link to other editors' relevant comments. I know it wasn't an AFD, it was an inappropriate notability tag - similar problem. :) Your comment above to Gbawden is well out of line btw. --DSQ  (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. That's fine. With Hilton College (South Africa) it was an honest mistake. Which happens. I genuinely put time into researching this though and it's pretty hurtful when treat my like didn't. It's an endless thing. His comment was well out of line. I'm deeply insulted by the idea that Africa should be treated as less then other places or somehow incapable. I know plenty of people from Africa and none of them want to be coddled or treated differently just because of the continent they come from. That line of thinking just creates the things that people like Gbawden are supposedly against. I'd really hate to see someone from Africa do an AfD and get treated the way I have for it. It would make Wikipedia look horrible and probably be really hurtful to the person. Like take a look at the diff from Articles_for_deletion/Catherine_Buckle. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per the myriad keepers and for similar reasoning. These AfD, based on an extreme POV are an irritation waste of time which could be better used improving existing articles. ClemRutter (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What "extreme POV" would that be? Last time I checked attacking nominators is an irritation and a waste of time, and your litterally doing it based on your POV. The amount of projection in your message is ridiculous. Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Various "best performing" mentions/listings, even when brief, do contribute something to notability per WP:GNG since they provide nontrivial coverage, as opposed to, say, regular directory listings. There are also examples of more substantive coverage here such as the The South African Family Encyclopaedia and The Cape Argus sources mentioned by User:Toughpigs. Overall sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as is notable and article sourcing backs this up. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2020 (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.