Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillbrook Anglican 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. — CharlotteWebb 01:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hillbrook Anglican School
Hillbrook Anglican School administration prefers that the official Hillbrook website be maintained as the primary source of online information for Hillbrook Anglican School. This Wikipedia entry's net effect as an information resource was considered negative in light of the frequency of graffiti events. Slartimitvar 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) — Slartimitvar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. The Hillbrook School administrations views are irrelevant to whether we have an article and I think that it is doubtful that the article would encourage vandals. There seem to be enough information available through Google News Archive to write an article on this school. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Capitalistroadster. I'm not sure I've ever seen a less valid reason for deletion. Slartimitvar: Please read Wikipedia's deletion policy. -- Antepenultimate 03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - if you've got problems on an article about your school, so fix them. Remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that everything must be compliant with WP:NPOV. MER-C 03:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable school and per invalid deletion reason. Heimstern Läufer 03:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep See Deletion policy and try to find a valid reason to get it deleted. The above nomination is not it.--Kchase T 04:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A few more things. First, this is not a valid candidate for speedy keep according to WP:SK. I considered closing it anyway, but I think leaving it open for the full five may elicit valuable commentary on why it shouldn't be deleted. Leaving it open also permits a more solid AfD, thereby discouraging future attempts with this reasoning. Finally, I'd encourage people who read this to add the article to your watchlists and revert vandalism and nonsense as you see it. We have a ton of recent changes patrollers, but some things get past that net. Concerns like those expressed by the nominator shouldn't prompt us to delete articles, but they also shouldn't be ignored. If someone complains about vandalism to an article they have reason to be concerned about, the solution is putting it on your watchlist and reverting the nonsense faster. Let's help them out if we can!--Kchase T 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Excellent reasoning, by the way. It's winter here, and boredom abounds, so why not? -- Antepenultimate 05:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Excellent reasoning, by the way. It's winter here, and boredom abounds, so why not? -- Antepenultimate 05:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Capitalistroadster. JROBBO 05:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh, this nomination made me die a little inside. That is a terrible reason to delete. Keep, Keep, a thousand times keep! StayinAnon 07:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Hold on there guys. The nominator doesn't really raise a valid reason to delete, but if the school's website is the only non-trivial source that we could use to write a good article on this school, then that would be a valid reason to delete.  If no other sources on this school can be found, the article should be deleted per WP:N.  Pan Dan 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, but that battle's been had and lost. See WP:AFDP. Whatever its merits, the precedent is on the side of keeping articles about high schools. There's also a lukewarm quote by Jimbo Wales around somewhere.--Kchase T 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The link you provided says "fewer than 15% [have been] actually deleted" -- I take that to mean at least, say, 5%, have been deleted? For example see the recent Articles for deletion/Collier High School -- result was delete due to failure of WP:N (which is apparently a problem with this school too).  Pan Dan 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well sure, some do get deleted. If you look at the actual precedent, though, they tend to get kept unless they are inordinately small or something else makes them minor compared to other high schools. The way that precedent was established is very controversial, but now that it's there, I think we ought to keep all high schools of any significance for consistency's sake. Otherwise we get the "my high school was deleted but some and such's high school is still here!" whiners, WP:INN notwithstanding.--Kchase T 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to vote delete, then just go ahead and vote delete, you don't need our permission. However, the precedent of a 95% keep rate (by your own math) should make someone pause and consider why this may be. One possible explanation is that schools, by their very nature, cannot avoid being discussed by multiple, independent third party sources - their student performance, their sports, their budgets, their school board elections, and so on and so forth. Just because sources aren't listed doesn't mean they do not exist. With schools, therefore, the issue likely becomes verifiability, and possibilities for merger (such as a particular High School merging with its host district's article). As this school appears to be somewhat independent, merger doesn't appear to be an option. Verifiability seems to be provided by the school's website. If more is needed for verifiability, I'm sure it won't be hard to find. -- Antepenultimate 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I haven't recommended to delete because I haven't checked to see if there are actually sources out there in this case. Second, I would just point out in response to some of your comment, that the multiple third-party sources you suggest exist for schools -- featuring school games, budgets, elections, etc. -- should be considered trivial.  They're not enough to show notability or to write a good Wikipedia article -- do you really think that a school article should be a collection of student performance stats, sagas about local football rivalries, and budgets?  Of course there are some high schools that have attracted the attention of the publishers in a non-trivial way and meet WP:N.  I would hazard to guess that at least 90% of high schools don't meet WP:N.  Pan Dan 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, what constitutes trivial per WP:N are one-sentence mentionings of a subject in a larger article, or the subject being little more than an entry in a larger table or graph. In many cases mentioned above, the school would be a primary subject of the article, which WP:N is very specific about. Of course it would be silly to include budgets and school stats, but other valuable info (school size, history, socio-economic demographics, when it was established, where it is located, if students happen to perform particularly well or poorly in academics or sports, etc.) could be readily available. And WP:N does not say that all such articles or the information contained within must be used as a basis for the article, it simply requires that they exist as a test for notability. (At least that's how I read it. It's kind of vague.) Also, check out the proposed guidelines at WP:SCHOOL, which includes as a footnote at the bottom: Newspaper coverage includes regular coverage in local media (such as complete stories about a school's athletic program). It also mentions "public reports by schools inspection agencies" as being acceptable for notability-determining purposes. Now I'm not from Australia and really don't know how they go about things there, but I guess I like to pick my battles when it comes to deletions, as I can't possibly see the harm in leaving this info. "Wikipedia is not paper" and all that. I imagine that for most, the same logic that tells us to keep all articles about every town and village also tells us that it's perfectly fine to include schools as well. -- Antepenultimate 23:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In fairness I should mention that another proposed guideline, Schools3 takes a different approach to this, in fact some might say the opposite approach. And they say notability is not subjective... -- Antepenultimate 23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (1) A series of local articles in the paper about the school's football games, or budget, don't show notability. They should be considered trivial in the sense that we could not use that kind of information to fill up an encyclopedia article.  (2) "WP:N does not say that all such articles or the information contained within must be used as a basis for the article" -- WP:N does say that "This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic."  If the only published encyclopedic info about a school is on its website, which is a single source (note we require multiple sources) and unreliable (as it has not gone through an editorial process and as it is first-party), then there is no way to write a good encyclopedia article about the school.  Wikipedia is not a mirror of school websites.  Pan Dan 12:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference. Unfortunately my database searches are limited to the past two years of articles. Since Pan Dan will undoubtedly remind us all again of the requirement for multiple sources, let me just say that I would bet money that some very non-trivial articles were likely written in 1986 when this school was founded, or in 1987 when its first academic year began. However, not living in Australia and not being able to frequent their libraries, I have no way of confirming this. I have already wasted enough time on this. My intention in the above discussion was to try and logically deduce why such an overwhelming precedent exists for school articles being kept on Wikipedia. Obviously it doesn't fit snuggly into a strict reading of the guidelines, or these AfDs that formed the basis of that precedent would have never been nominated in the first place. I suspect that, instead of trying to brainstorm these reasons only to have Pan Dan pick them apart one-by-one, we can probably just chalk it up to WP:IGNORE and be done with it. -- Antepenultimate 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Invalid bad faith nomination. --- RockMFR 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely keep. I'm sorry, but you don't get to choose whether or not you have a Wikipedia article. -Toptomcat 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to be a well intentioned but misguided attempt to control the information about this school. I don't think this is a speedy situation and I second Kchase; this should run it's course to establish consensus, even though no valid deletion reason was given.  I'd also urge editors to put this on their watchlist.--Isotope23 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, an administration site is obviously POV and should *not* be the only source of information available. If they don't like it, too bad -- their authority doesn't extend to Wikipedia.  Birdboy2000 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot find the reason given for the deletion to be valid. TSO1D 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Howrealisreal 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep schools shouldn't be deleted-- also per above--Xiahou 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep not a valid reason for deletion. Ckessler 05:21, 12 December 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.