Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kambrya 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The result was Speedy keep nomination withdrawn without contention by others. JERRY talk contribs 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kambrya College

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Utterly, N/N school, article doesn't assert notability in anyway, been tagged for notability since March '07, fails guidelines of WP:ORG Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn Article is now a workable stub, most people seem to be agreeable towards the sourcing, I won't let little old me get in the way. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This school is non-notable, there is no way it meets WP:N but now, once again, the school inclusionists are weighing in and soon, a nice sympathetic inclusionist editor will come along and claim that the outcome was keep because of the reasons stated below. Which are crap, this was brought to because the notability was questioned, so your arguments of "all the other high schools are notable" is inherently flawed, but I can see the way this is going, and I'm not going to add another notch to your belt. In a little while, we can restart this with a clean slate. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite the leap of bad faith anticipation of the future closing administrator. When consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of a "keep" decision, even a "deletionist" is likely to close the discussion as "keep" (this is currently looking like a snowball keep").  Most of the "keep" voters here are citing the reliable secondary sources about this school and not solely the "all high schools are notable" argument.  --Oakshade (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, especially as we see the same thing happen at least once a week. Explain to me, I can only see one non-trivial source cited here, WP:N states that multiple secondary sources must be found to establish notability, that hasn't been done. So how does it meet WP:N editors keep saying that it has, but it clearly hasn't! then there is this inherent notability bullshit, grrr. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ  Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It clearly has met WP:N. Firstly, WP:N doesn't used the world "multiple."  Even if it did, there are three sources in this article that give coverage to this school that is well beyond the scope of "passing mention".  I know those weren't in the article when you first nominated it, but I would advise doing research before nominating an article for deletion.  If you truly still feel it doesn't pass notability standards, just keep the nomination. --Oakshade (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So why does it refer to source in the plural in every instance? and No, I think if you actually read the refs you'll find only one of them is non-trivial. Moreover, the source that isn't trivial is from the education liftout from one of the cities two major local papers, they feature a new school everyweek and find something good to say about each and every one of them! The source doens't really assert the schools notability either, it just doesn't mention them in passing thats all. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ  Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually read all references in detail and this school is much more than a "passing mention" in all three of them. There's nothing in WP:NOTABILITY about sources "asserting notability" of a topic.  (That's a strange argument I've never seen anyone use.)  The writers of WP:N are working with the principal that if a secondary source is about a topic, that in itself is the sources' indication of notability.   I don't know why you're still arguing this after you withdrew the nomination. Renew the nomination if you feel this doesn't meet notability standards.  --Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, the article about the strike and teacher's retention mentions the school in a trivial or passing manner, you couldn't say the articles were about the school at all. The other article, which is about the school states that yes, this is a school, it is surrounded by private schools, blah blah blah. I guess what i'm trying to say here is that although it doesn't mention the school in a trivial manner, or passing, and the entire article is devoted to the school, that the article itself is trivial, it is little more than a profile of the school. I believe somewhere WP:N says "use your common sense" which is what should be happening here, instead of the article being kept on the premise of a few faulty sources and some perception that all high-schools are notable. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ  Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Three of the articles are much more than "trivial mentions" of this school. A teachers strike at Kambrya College is not about Kambrya College and only mentions it in passing?  The principal of Kambrya College having to deal with budget cuts at Kambrya College is a "trivial meniont" of Kambrya College?  And this last article about Kambrya College is not about Kabrya College or just mentions it in passing?  You seem to have a severe missunderstanding of WP:NOTABILITY, particularly when it refers to "trivial coverage" and "passing mention" definitions .--Oakshade (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, The articles about the strike and teacher retention only mention the school in a trivial manner, the remaining article is trivial in itself, try to apply common sense in your interpretation of WP:N. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Most people would think that an article about a teachers strike at Kambrya College is much than a "passing mention" of Kambrya College. Everyone here but you are using a common sense approach to WP:N --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Most reasonable people wouldn't care what they think because the same people probably think that all high schools are also inherently notable no? Why don't you try reading the article? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you're just assuming bad faith and attacking all editors (whom even you are terming "most reasonable people") who are choosing to keep this article, which so far is everyone who voted in this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, perhaps you misunderstood me, please read my comments again.. Yes, i'm well aware of the sad fact, some people just don't interpret the the guidelines as literally as I do. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ  Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment two articles from The Age, which is, admittedly, published in Melbourne, making it another case of the local metro paper covering a school in their own backyard and no one else taking any notice. cab (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, i'm not sure what you're trying to say here? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is, the school is in Melbourne, so the question is whether a newspaper's coverage of education in their own metro area is enough to establish notability. The Age has a circulation of about a million and the articles seem to be intellectually independent of the schools in question (unlike some cases I've seen where the "journalist" clearly had a kid going to the school he was writing about), so maybe this isn't a concern. I don't know either way. cab (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No lol, I wasn't questioning "The Age" (I did however check that they weren't advertising features, editorials or blogs) I thought you were taking a jab at me =S... but you weren't. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah gotcha, sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude like the way it came out =). Cheers, cab (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Age is a major newspaper with an international reach. The fact that it has written about a local school is irrelevant; it is a reliable source because of its editorial standards. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why something has to have international or non-local coverage to pass wikipedia policies... Ans e ll  05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The article is similar to many other school articles, lacking in independent references and making no attempt to assert notability (other than stating its existence). However, the sources provided by cab in this case actually make a case for notability.  This is not a run-of-the mill State High School and it may be possible to write an informative, encyclopedic article on this school.  Note: the fact that sources are available for this school has no bearing on the likelihood of sources being found for other schools and the the fact that this school is notable does not mean all schools are notable.  All articles on schools need to be individually assessed against WP:N. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, after reading the refs, I would say that number 2 only really mentions the school in a trivial manner in relation to the larger problem of teacher retention. Source 1. goes into greater detail. Still this is probably enough to satisfy WP:ORG but I would like some more opionions. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ  Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * possibly we still need more non-trivial secondary sources, I don't think notability has been established. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The rule is sourceable, and experience has shown that all high school articles can be sourced if they are worked on enough. In the meantime its a valid stub.DGG (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats a weak argument, this is an AFD, as in, the article has been nominated because it's not notable, and one of the reasons why it isn't notable because it is unsourced. Therefore you can't just say that all high schools are notable because they''re supposedly sourceable. This has been nom'd because it isn't sourceable, so your argument doesn't hold weight. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ  Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable school - two sources from Melbourne Age are both passes for WP:RS and therefore passes WP:V. I should add that The Age is lets say the Melbourne equivalent of The New York Times. The article is definitely a keeper in my opinion. Sting au  Buzz Me...   07:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being a secondary school in itself is an assertion of notability. Being "one of the largest single campus schools in Victoria" is a rather grand assertion of notability.  Besides that consensus has consistently kept high/secondary schools, the sources, like that of The Age, confirm notability. --Oakshade (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please show me where consensus on the notability of high schools has been established. Using this argument in AfD discussions is circular, the articles are kept because they are inherenly notable, they are inherently notable because they are kept.  Schools are no different than any other organisation and need to demonstrate that they meet WP:N.  Simply stating that they are a school is not an assertion of notability any more than than stating "Sam's Quality Meats is a butcher shop" is a statement of notability.  Schools have no special status entitling them to a run around Wikipedia notability requirements. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indication of high/secondary schools being kept is at WP:OUTCOMES. There is no history data regarding meat shops. --Oakshade (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:OUTCOMES "As these are not binding policies, the fact that a precedent exists should not be interpreted as prima facie evidence that a particular topic is entitled to an article" -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy and the basic editing principal of Wikipeida, has consistently kept high/secondary schools. You seem to be focusing on that point and ignoring the other arguments (is the subject of secondary sources, etc.)  --Oakshade (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Two points. Firstly, I have supported keeping this article (see above) because it meets WP:N.  Secondly, I object to having the results of previous AfDs used as a reason to keep articles on schools.  Notability needs to be established on an individual basis, not as a class.  The ffact that sources can and have been found for this article says nothing about the likelihood of finding sources for all articles on all schools.  As above, AfD discussions have been keeping articles on schools based on inherent notability and then using the fact that they are kept as demonstration of inherent notability.  This is a circular argument and proves nothing except persistance from those editors determined to establish precedents.  If you want to establish inherent notability of schools, get consensus to have WP:N modified to reflect this rather than try and impose it on the community through self made precedents. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not "self-made" consensus, but consensus based on broad Wikipedia consensus established by thousands of editors which my "self" had nothing to do with. --Oakshade (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thousands? Not even big things on this place have 4-digit, some are lucky to get 3-digit and I think this would be single-digit. Orderinchaos 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think thousands is an accurate estimate when it comes to the number of editors who contribute to the AfD discussions. There certainly have been hundreds (at least) of high/secondary schools nominated for AfD and at least 5 editors contribute to the discussion on most of them.  Some lively discussions have over 30 editors in the discussions.--Oakshade (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite its recent foundation it's even been written about in books (well, a book anyway).--Paularblaster (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a major high school which, despite being relatively new, still has sources that meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:N easily with the "The Age" article. Assize (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with others that "The Age" article helps justify its status as notable. However, I disagree that any secondary school is inherently notable. Without "The Age" reference and possibly the strike mention, this article is otherwise lacking in notable elements - in particular, the section "Academics" is utterly non-notable and could be written with minor variations for most secondary schools in Australia. Murtoa (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs more context but definitely seems notable and reliable sources can be found on this topic. I also agree with Murtoa, though, that not all secondary schools are notable. Orderinchaos 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Have some queries about the particular text in the article but the subject passes all of my criteria. Ans e ll  05:37, 3 February 2008 (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.