Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeugland Hoërskool


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 06:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Jeugland Hoërskool

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There have been no references since 2009, there is no content in the article, and no indication of its notability Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per WP:OUTCOMES, high schools are generally notable - even if they fail GNG Gbawden (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * you misunderstand WP:OUTCOMES It does not say all high schools are notable and should have a wikipedia article. All schools must meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, many high schools are able to do this, but it is obvious that not all do.
 * Trust me, nobody here misunderstands WP:OUTCOMES (except perhaps you). It merely illustrates a de facto consensus. I don't recall any secondary school ever being deleted at AfD. That's consensus. OUTCOMES just sums that up. And Wikipedia works on consensus, not rigid rules. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I AfD'd A. J. C. Jooste High School on the same grounds and the end result was a keep. See Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think A. J. C. Jooste High School should have been deleted; Jeugland Hoërskool doesn't even have the "honour" of having alleged criminally abusive teachers. Nothing has been said of Jeugland, other than it exists.  It seems completely arbitary to me to say that a completly non notable high school can have a wikipedia article, but a notable primary school can't (for example Hillcrest Primary School.  I believe this violates the principle of no inherited notability Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Notable primary schools can have articles. They simply don't have the presumption of notability that secondary schools have. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Secondary schools are kept per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read User:Necrothesp/Secondary_schools, but I still disagree, I just don't see the point of a wikipedia article whose only purpose is to assert that a school exists, the school's own webpage can do that. Why not create the school's wikipedia article when there is something of impotance to say about the school?
 * This has been discussed at AfD ad infinitem. Every single secondary school article has been kept. That's consensus, whether you like it or not. And that's how we work here. I don't agree with every consensus either (although I do agree with this one), but it's pointless to go against them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per WP:OUTCOMES, high schools are generally notable - even if they fail GNG. This is is an undisputable precedent that  has been in practice for many  years. AfD is not  the place for individual  nominators to  attempt  back-door changes to  policies and guidelines. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * More exactly,we for convenience consider them as notable, in order to avoid thousands of afds over them. The counterpart is that we redirect primary and intermediate schools almost always, without trying to make and defend separate articles on them, leading to thousands of other afds also. It's not a inclusionist-on-schools position -- it's equally a deletionist-on-schools position, and best regarded as a working compromise. I wish we had more such, and then we would only need to debate here the  matters which couldn't be settled by a simple rule.  DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)   DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 22 November 2014 (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.