Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siena Catholic 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 Keep, thanks to those who revised and improved the article. NawlinWiki 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Siena Catholic College

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Been tagged for notability since August. No reliable secondary sources to support notability. Yet another non notable school 3tmx 13:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   —Twenty Years 13:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable school, google says little about it, couldnt find anything that meets WP:N or WP:ORG. Fails all criteria, cruft. Twenty Years 13:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable third-party sources for this school. Moreover, it fails notability criteria as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 13:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This educational institution for students in "years 8-12" corresponds to what Americans would call a high school. My position remains that high schools of any reasonable size are per se notable. Newyorkbrad 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete My feeling continues to be that high schools are not notable as such and they must have something that brings references into play from reliable third party sources. Stormbay 15:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a nn highschool. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasons:
 * (1) The school was a part of massive media coverage in Australia for years after a 13-year-old student was abducted from a bus stop in 2003 and never heard from again. As a Google News archives search of the school name shows, the school played a prominent part of the coverage (the boy's brother went there, the school held prayer vigils and other demonstrations of support for the three years leading up to his class's graduation in November 2006. I've added a short paragraph about it in the article, and probably should add another sentence about the memorials at the school. This considerably strengthens the WP:Notability for the school. Closing admin, please discount all delete comments made before this addition to the article unless they take the new addition into account. If I find more evidence of notability, I'm going to add that as well.


 * (2) All high school's are notable since it is safe to assume that every single high school on the planet, ever, has received substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources -- newspapers, for instance. No high school has ever been built or opened its doors without local newspapers writing articles (constituting nontrivial coverage) reporting that fact, simply because every single high school is unversally acknowledged (with the exception of some Wikipedia editors) to be important enough to receive that coverage. Because this notability can be reliably assumed, all high schools are inherently notable and we should keep articles about high schools where reliable sources have been cited to give us more than directory-type information on the school. Noroton 17:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd argue that the school is secondary and incidental to the event. Most disappearences/tragedies that occur to schoolchildren almost without saying result in candlelit vigils etc at the school. Whether the cited coverage (which seems predominantely to be the same paragraph) . What right have you got tell the admin to discount everyone elses opinion  based on your  pov judgement that this incidental connection makes the school inherently notable?? I think people can decide this for themselves. At the very least you ought to tell them that you have decided their opinion doesn't count (does this include the person who had already googled the school??)


 * Your arguement that schools are inherently notable is frankly absurd. The type of coverage is crucial. Local press coverage does not make something notable - local papers cover anything from summer fairs to amateur hockey clubs to parking disputes (i've worked on a local paper and believe me they can cover anything) - it does not make them notable. Has every high school received national coverage??? No. Is there something about them above and beyond they are a school - usually no. Your arguement that "every single high school is unversally acknowledged (with the exception of some Wikipedia editors) to be important enough to receive that coverage" is also absurd. I'd roughly rephrase this arguement for rhetorical effect as "everyone (those unfamiliar with wikipedia's standards and guidelines) except for certain wikipedians (who are familiar with wikipedia's standards and guidelines) think schools are notable for inclusion in wikipedia. "universally acknoweged" - what statistics are you basing this on???  I accept that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but think notability does not extend automatically to schools as per WP school. Its issues like this that really make me want to give up on wikipedia - the pov pushing, the abuse of an open system for self-promotion etc 3tmx 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK Sweetheart, let's look over your objections:
 * 1. the school is secondary and incidental to the event Doesn't matter. The coverage I cited, including the Google News Archives link in my comment above (and in the news accoutns cited in the article), was substantial, not trivial, coverage of the school itself as it reacted to this.
 * 2. As to telling the closing admin to discount prior opinions, that's standard when new information comes to light that previous participants didn't see. It doesn't mean totally ignore their opinions, but obviously conclusions about notability that didn't have the additional information can't be considered with nearly the same weight. As long as you don't violate WP:CANVASS, you are free to leave messages on every previous participant's talk page and politely ask them to take another look at the article, since their preivous opinions likely will be discounted. This discounting is common practice that I wanted to remind the closing admin about. I was trying to find where this practice is stated in Wikipedia policy and guidelines but I haven't. Maybe it's just a tradition.
 * 3. Please review WP:N and WP:ORG. Local news coverage, as long as it's not trivial, is fine with Wikipedia. Nor does policy tell us we have to establish that the school is nationally notable. You mentioned WP:SCHOOL. That isn't policy; it's a failed proposal.
 * 4. Common sense tells us that when a high school opens, local news organizations will cover that opening, and later provide more coverage, in a substantial way. That is what is "universally acknowledged". It's the way the world works, and if you've worked for a local paper, you know this. Since we can reasonably be sure that this kind of coverage is always out there, then we shouldn't delete. There is no notability requirement that we actually have to cite the source to establish notability. Only that we have to have some reasonable assurance that such a source exists. And for high schools, we always do. We consider articles about localities inherently notable for the same reason. Here, take a look at this Google News Archives citation and tell me if you doubt that it's substantial coverage:


 * Principal built school from the ground up / AUD2.50 - Courier Mail - News Limited Australia - Jun 11, 2006 As foundation Principal of Siena Catholic College at Sippy Downs on the Sunshine Coast from 1996 until three weeks short of his death, he built a school ...


 * Now, unfortunately it costs an arm and a leg to actually access this news account, but from the Google description do you honestly doubt for a second that it wouldn't give us substantial, reliable coverage of the school itself as defined by WP:N? Noroton 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you get 10/10 for being a patronising slimeball for legitimate points about how the argument "how every school in the world is notable" .  Don't dare call me or another editor sweetheart.    3tmx 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way I'm withdrawing further contribution from this discussion. Please do not contact me on this page or any other.
 * 3tmx 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I crossed it out. Sorry I caused so much offense. Noroton 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Article makes specific claims of notability, supported by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   —Noroton 01:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of mentions in independent secondary sources outside the context of Daniel's disappearance. One major mention in major Brisbane daily newspaper and a mention in the major Fijian newspaper. Easily meets WP:N. Assize 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this school at any rate is notable with sufficient distinctive features and sources. Well done article as revised. Although it was notable in any case, if it had not been nominated it would not have been so dramatically improved. Though sometime effective, we should be able to fid a better way. DGG (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree entirely with NewYorkBrad, that any High School should be notable per se (like any settlement). I can't see why Wikipedia accepts say Eckington, Derbyshire on the nod and quibbles about its only (large) secondary school. It would be easy to produce a fair-sized non-contentious page on the school from reputable sources but they are all ruled out in the guidelines, so I'm not going to bother. -- roundhouse0 10:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep due to improvements by Noroton and Assize. John Vandenberg 12:44, 26 September 2007 (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.