Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeugland Hoërskool (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Kempton Park. As an ATD Spartaz Humbug! 08:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Jeugland Hoërskool
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was nominated for deletion back in 2014 due to lacking any refences, which it still doesn't have (in-depth or otherwise) and was keep "because SCHOOLOUTCOMES." SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a valid keep reason now though. Since it has been over turned per the RfC about it (I think this is a good example of why). So, this should be deleted due to failing both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Since it lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources for it to be notable. I couldn't find any when I looked either (and no I won't list exactly where I looked, what specific keyboard buttons I pressed to do the search, or anything else along those lines). --Adamant1 (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 23.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 08:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete we need some actual 3rd-party sources to justify an article on a secondary school, not just internal sourcing to an organization itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that the location of this school was wrongly moved a few kilometres in, and more importantly when it comes to searching, it is actually called "Hoërskool Jeugland", not "Jeugland Hoërskool":
 * Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep' Passes WP:GNG. Coverage and .  is just a listing of schools in the area but it's notable enough to note, and  is brief but not bad. Also  isn't great but reported sports results is one marker of notability so including it. There are many more results, especially directory listings, discussions with school alumni, and a video with alleged bullying from the school. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where do the guidelines say anywhere that reporting of sports results is a marker of notability? Also, how do the first and second sources, which are just pictures with a caption, meet WP:GNG in any way like your claiming they do? BTW, just an FYI the guidelines are pretty clear that multiple references from the same outlet only count as one source because they have to be journalistically (and otherwise) independent from each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone - maybe Bearian? - has set out their own standards that schools must pass in order to get past WP:GNG. You're right the first two sources are brief, but I think there's plenty on which a neutral standalone article can be written. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's who it is. I semi-agree with that for like a University maybe. I don't think it works if your talking about like a high-school football teams scores being in the local or even regional newspaper. At least where I'm from all high school sports gets that kind of coverage. For something to be notable it has to be unique and not applicable to every other thing in it's "category." Like were not going to have an article about a school just because it has walls. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not true that for something to be notable it has to be unique. Such a rule would turn us into the Guinness Book of Records rather than an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the whole "trivial" thing exists then or things like "changes in share or bond prices" or "product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance" not counting toward notability even though they sometimes get national or regional news coverage? Rarely if ever is something like "hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel" notable (except in extremely rare cases) and 100% it's not because every company hires and fires people. Those are already things we don't include and in No way does not having articles on companies full of tables of everyone the company has hired and fired turn Wikipedia into the Guinness Book of Records. Nor does not listing every single, or any, products a company has released. It's ridiculous to claim it otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please think before you write. Nothing there says that a company has to be unique, let alone a school, which, per WP:NSCHOOL which is part of WP:ORG, only has to pass the WP:GNG, not necessarily WP:ORG. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd love to know how you translated "changes in share or bond prices" to me saying "a company has to be unique." --Adamant1 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You very clearly said "for something to be notable it has to be unique". They were your words, not mine. It's impossible to hold a civilised discussion about anything when you blatantly deny the obvious evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Something" as in the subject/content of the articles. Which would should be obvious since that's literally what we are evaluating. Seriously, we aren't deciding if a company is notable in a vacuum here or based on some sort of osmosis. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Er, yes, of course I know what "something" means in this context. I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your comment. You simply said that the topic of an article has to be unique. I disagreed. If you think that your position can be justified then justify it. Otherwise just stop posting, or (and this would be a first) admit that you were mistaken. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All I have to say is that you really must be commit WP:WIKIHOUNDING if you know I've never admitted to making a mistake before. BTW, your the one that responded to my comment to SportsFlyer. So, I think the solution to this back and forth would have been for you to not start it in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE were not WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth.   // Timothy ::  talk  17:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kempton Park. I've trawled but regrettably don't see sufficient decent sources to support a meaningful article. The only mention that jumps out from a significant source is, debatable whether it counts as in-depth coverage. Humansdorpie (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources provided are little more than mentions. The Mail & Guardian seems to be the best coverage and it actually provides very little coverage of the school. That means the subject currently fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 19:05, 4 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.