Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redbank Plains State High 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. while I recognize there are those who think these aren't notable, and I don't 100% agree that all high schools are notable, there is an overwhelming consensus that they are. No point in prolonging this AfD and the inevitable outcome. Regardless, merging doesn't need an AFD. StarM 03:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Redbank Plains State High School

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

fails WP:ORG lacks significant third party sources establish notability or existence as a separate article. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. Even if I hadn't been able to find the references, there is a consensus that all high schools are notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While I have no opinion on whether this school meets the notability criteria or not, I keep seeing this comment that consensus says all high schools are notable. It seems to me to be a bit of a circular argument: "this school should be kept because consensus says all high schools are notable", followed shortly by "since high schools are in the main kept, therefore consensus must be that they are all notable". It does not matter how many times the first argument is repeated, it does not make the second part true. Nor have I seen any general consensus about this notability other than its constant repetition. A school, high school or otherwise is notable if it meets the general notability guidelines. If that is demonstrated, then arguments about a perceived consensus are unnecessary. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the talk page for the essay Notability (high schools). It is very clear that high school articles are not ever deleted on the basis of notability.  Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Redbank_Plains,_Queensland. Even with the sources, seems to be just another unremarkable SHS.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep Whilst "local in scope" there is some "verifiable information from reliable independent sources" in the article per WP:ORG. Assize (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On the question of "remarkable", there are 108 hits of various types in Factiva on the school. Assize (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article passes WP:N and is WP:V. Looks a valid High school stub to me. Most High school articles are kept per WP:OUTCOMES.--Sting  Buzz Me...   11:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets usual standards, plus usual precedent. Wily D 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as high school article, which through a very well established precedent is a subject area that can be generally assumed to be notable. See the very short project space essay at Notability (high schools), as well as its talk page for further explanation of this concept.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I reverted a non-admin closure of this AFD because the closer used his/her own opinion as the basis to speedy close the discussion, contrary to the consensus guidelines, deletion policy and WP:NAC. I am sure this was a well-intentioned closure, but I think it was not appropriate. Closer's comment provided below.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The result was  Keep (non-admin closure), because (1) high schools are considered notable on Wikipedia and (2) Eastmain has added proper references, thus cancelling the concern about lacking third party sources. Okay, class dismissed! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment The admin who disruptively reopened this AfD clearly did not bother to read my NAC decision, which cited two reasons -- the second, which was ignored in his decision to reopen the AfD, involved the fact the AfD nominator complained of a lack of third party sources, which was quickly addressed by Eastmain's excellent additions to the article. I stand by my NAC decision as being correct -- and since this AfD is obviously heading for the preservation of the article, it appears the reversion serves no practical purpose whatsoever. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:21, 11 November 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.