Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame High School (Calgary)


 * 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. John254 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Notre Dame High School (Calgary)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, sites no references. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC) WP:SCHOOL does not state that High Schools receive a free pass on notability.AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. There is almost always suitable sourced material available for high schools-- and our practice is to consistently accept them rather than argue about each one, since it will almost certainly be notable. DGG (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a criteria for inclusion WP:SCHOOL, just because a school exists does not mean it should remain on Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep I just added two sources that meet all the requirements of WP:N and WP:SCHOOL. Technicallly: the two sources (news articles) obviously include substantial coverage, and they are used in the WP article to cite information, but not much. I didn't pay to go behind the Calgary Sun's subscription wall to actually read them (the information provided at the website's search results page gave me the information). The purpose of the notability guidelines is to insure that the subject is notable enough, and these two footnotes prove that it is, so adding these kinds of footnotes doesn't seem to be wikilawyering (evading the actual spirit of the guidelines). Of course, the article remains lousy. Noroton (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles you referenced are that the school was planned and that it opened. That imho isn't notable, the references also doesnt link to the articles themselves. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines what kind of sources meet Wikipedia's standard over at WP:Notability where the guideline says that the article is safe if objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Newspaper articles devoted to the opening of a school will necessarily cover the subject "substantially" as WP:N defines it -- that is, with a substantial amount of detail. It's not reasonable to believe that these two articles don't do that. Noroton (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not according to WP:NOT, a simple announcement that something is opening or being built does not add to it being notable. Also the link of a reference should be to the reference, not to the search the news site page. WP:VER requires a reference be "cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question". A link to the "search the archives page" is not precise or clear. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - substantial high school that is significant in its community. We delete not because the article is not sourced but if sources are not available and there are sufficient available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If there were any notability according to WP:SCHOOL then you may have a point. But there isn't any and no references to even suggest that there are. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOL bows to WP:Notability and also allows some schools to pass AfD with a different notability standard, so meeting one or the other standard can allow a school article to be kept. Noroton (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont think so, under that definition the Walmart down the street is notable, so is the sewage treatment plant they are planning on building on the next county. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG makes the individual WalMart difficult. Find sources for the sewage treatment plant in the next county that are as good as these for the school, and WP:N is no bar to it. Your argument is with the guidelines. Noroton (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, imho, the articles saying something is opening or being built only prove it exists. Everything is planned and opened, that doesn't mean it should be included in wikipedia. Its an announcement that its being built or opened WP:NOT. Also the references should be to the reference, not to a "search the paper" page. Otherwise it is private, and being private is not notable. AlbinoFerret (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 05:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is generally trivial to find reliable sources for expansion of high schools. Should you believe this is not the case for this school, WP:SCHOOL procedure is not to delete but to merge to the district. Double Blue  (Talk) 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The nomination wasn't that it hasn't been expanded, but that it lacked notability. Please find some references that suggest the nominated school is notable according to WP:SCHOOL criteria. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - High schools generally have secondary sources written about them. That's why they are almost always kept (I've personally never seen one deleted).  Sometimes high school articles don't have those sources placed in the article yet.  That's a reason for article improvement, not deletion for notability reasons.  This topic is in fact the subject of secondary sources which are beyond the scope of "trivial" (passing mention, directory listing, etc.). --Oakshade (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep; we NEVER delete high school articles on the basis of notability, because through an exhaustive series of attempts at doing so, over a very long period of time, EVERY high school inevitably is found to easily meet the primary retention criterial of WP:N. High schools are the sort of a central institution within a community that inherantly generates news, and as such through a sufficient search of archives can be shown to be notable.  It is a matter of conveneience to preassume them to be notable to avoid unnecessary deletion discussions that NEVER result in deletion.  There is ample precedent to summarily dismiss deletion nominations for high schools; hence the basis for the draft guidance in WP:School, which although not de jure in force, it is certainly de facto in force. So: keep per WP:School.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay... well apparently somebody deleted that part of WP:School in the past 2 weeks... It is in effect, none the less, so modify my previous statement to "keep per what should be in WP:School". Or -- keep per  Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)‎. Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an essay, written by you! Not only that, it was written this morning. It also is contrary to WP:SCHOOL, the work of multiple editors that suggests that schools need to show some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? Are you saying that I can't cite my own essay when !voting in AfD? Is there some rule about that?  If so, I think I'll ignore it.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that it holds no weight. Its not a guideline or policy. You might just as well have written it here. That you didn't disclose that you wrote it when you posted it here. I could write an essay saying that schools that don't show notability should be removed from Wikipedia, at least that one wouldn't conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual in AfDs for users to point to essays for further information on a point of the debate. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:37, 3 April 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.