Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph's Boys' 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep; please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

St. Joseph's Boys' School
(1) Following a Lexis-Nexis search, this school does not appear to be the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial works which would indicate notability. For this reason, delete.

(2) Strangely enough, I can't find an inspection report on this school (I thought all UK schools had one). But even if there is one, such a report would not indicate notability. In general, the existence of non-trivial third-party sources shows that the outside world (as represented by the publisher of the source) deems the subject notable, hence we Wikipedians consider it notable enough for inclusion. But an inspection report on a school isn't published because its publisher, or anybody, deems the school notable, it's published because schools are accountable to parents. So an inspection report is not enough to show that a school is notable.

(3) This school even appears to fail the overly inclusive criteria of WP:SCHOOL. Now, before someone says "But WP:SCHOOL suggests merging, not deleting," note that my main reason to delete (1) does not rely on WP:SCHOOL, which anyway does not enjoy consensus approval. I mention that this school fails WP:SCHOOL only to bolster the argument for non-notability. Pan Dan 12:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Yea, it may not be notable, and probably not notable enough to keep. Right on the line I think even though great arguments posted for the delete.  still Have to agree with the delete but only weakly.  Chris Kreider 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Regarding inspection reports in UK schools, you need to know that each of the constituent parts of the UK has slightly different education systems. While it is true that inspection reports are published for all state schools in England and Wales (and I believe also in Scotland), I do not know that this is the case in Northern Ireland. Perhaps a Wiki user from there can let us know. Emeraude 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Being new, I suspect what the above are saying is that if the entry were in another entry, like the local town, it might be alright, but on its own it isn't notable enough! --Mike 18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It appears that this school, which has existed 40+ years is suffering from being able to establish notability. Unfortunately, that is the situation for most Northern Irish schools where, due to political sensitivities, most schools do not even have their own website to sing their praises. If it helps, here is an article from the Times Edducational Supplement about a teaching method devised by a teacher at the school, http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2093130 . Nuttah68 20:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

— Audiobooks (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (stricken as a duplicate comment)
 * Delete The nominator (excellently) states more than I ever could. -- Kicking222 20:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I must admit that it is kind of refreshing to see people who nominate schools for deletion do their research beforehand. Likewise, I'm going to hold off on "voting" until I do a bit of digging.  JYolkowski // talk 21:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, subject of multiple nontrivial independent coverage such as the government inspections in 1998 and 2005 , Raising Standards In Special Education Provision In St Josephs Boys Secondary School Londonderry. A gratuitously brutal nomination. Kappa 05:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Gratuitously brutal"? I would've said "thorough."  I made the points I did in my nom because those issues have come up before in school AfD's.  And indeed, my point (2) is an argument why the sources you provide don't show notability.  Pan Dan 15:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do want to congratulate you for finding those reports. I guess my problem was searching for "st josephs boys school" instead of "st josephs secondary school."  Pan Dan 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of the inspection data, reports and Times Educational Supplement article on the school. Nuttah68 08:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Times Supplement article is not "on the school." The school is at least 2 degrees removed from the subject of the article, which is, to boil it down, about field trips.  The "Spooker Prize" is only mentioned as an example.  Further, I think that the Spooker Prize can only charitably be called a "teaching method," as you call it above.  (It's taking kids to a cemetary and having them write or tell stories about it.)  Neither the Spooker Prize nor its inventor, Sinead McCrystal, justifies an article about this school.  Pan Dan 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 15:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your logic escapes me. Pan Dan 16:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically, the argument has been put forward so many times on so many AfDs that it gets tedious to continually trot it out. Nominating these articles is utterly pointless and a waste of everybody's time, as even the most fanatical deletionist must have realised by now. It has got to the stage when deletionist dogma has overruled common sense, and that is not beneficial to Wikipedia in any way. We are eventually going to have to agree to disagree, since 99% of articles on secondary schools will be kept. -- Necrothesp 02:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you want to argue on the basis of precedent. But you can't conclude from precedent that high schools are notable.  Any kind of AfD precedent tells us what actually happened to articles, not whether the subjects of the articles were in fact notable.  You also can't conclude from precedent that high school noms are pointless.  Because, looking at schoolwatch, I see that 4 recent high school AfD's resulted in no consensus and 1 in a merge.  From my point of view, folks who flood flooding these AfD's with groundless keep votes are those who are is "not beneficial to Wikipedia."  In cases where the delete voters have good arguments and the keep voters have strength in numbers, the result should be delete.  Pan Dan 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm arguing on the basis of people wasting all our time by continually nominating articles that are obviously almost certainly going to be kept. The arguments for keeping high school articles been made again and again by "folks like me" and endlessly rehashing them for "folks like you" is getting tedious. Oh, and incidentally, before you level accusations about my beneficialness to Wikipedia I suggest you check my edit record. -- Necrothesp 16:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whew, where to start? (1) I don't doubt the greatness of your edit record.  I doubt the benefit of voting in AfD's without giving a good reason.  (2)  Even though I think your vote is pointless without giving a reason, I withdrew my reference to "you" in my comment because I didn't want to get personal.  You changed my comment back, and that's not cool.  (3) If you have actual arguments to make as to why this school is notable, please make them even if it would be tedious to do so.  I've made the arguments in my nom many times before, and yes it was a little tedious to make them yet again, but I had to do it.  If you're too tired to make arguments you shouldn't be voting.  Pan Dan 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, first of all, I didn't change your comment at all. I replied to what I saw on my screen at the time and I did not get an edit conflict notice. Why on earth would I change your comment? Do I have a history of changing people's comments? Second, I shall write what I choose in an AfD. The closer will make his or her own decision as to the validity of the comments. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Yes, really; even if it conflicts with yours. You also seem to think this is a vote; it is not. AfDs don't work that way. -- Necrothesp 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (1) I'll accept that a software glitch or a very slow page update is responsible for my comment getting changed back from this to this when you replied to it. If you didn't knowingly change it, I apologize.  (2) You're entitled to state your keep opinion, and I'm entitled to challenge it for being groundless.  A vote without a good reason is no help to the closer who's trying to reach a final decision.  Pan Dan 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks to Kappa for bringing to my attention that it's also called St. Joseph's Secondary School. But I still don't see any non-trivial sources for this school under that name.  Pan Dan 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The school has no non-trivial sources for it under either name so it doesn't meet even the most basic notability criterion. The school makes no other claims of notability whatsoever. JoshuaZ 20:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, reliable sources exist to verify an article on this topic. A merge might be appropriate per the WP:SCHOOL proposal. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least I can demonstrate that the school exists. I looked it up at 192.com and got an address and a phone number. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The school's web site is a student presentation about Du Pont rather than the school. Perhaps the company is a significant local employer. I added the local school board's page about the school. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not asserted. Schools not inherently notable.AKAF 14:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply existing is not enough, contrary to what some people imply. This school has nothing remarkable, nothing that sets it apart from any and avery other school. Since I don't feel that all schools are inherently notable (why should they?), this one has no reason to have its own article anyumore than an average person has. No verifiable non-trivial coverage for the school (not some tangential coverage, directory entries, local newspapers listing some school party, or inspection reports please, I've had enoug hof those in many school articles). Fram 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Above and beyond the inherent potential notability that all secondary schools possess, this article has been greatly improved from the point at which the AfD was created (again, thanks to TruthbringerToronto), and will only benefit from further improvement and expansion. Alansohn 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The school appears to be located in an economically deprived area, and for a number of reasons it is unlikely to generate the same proportion of notable alumni as an independent or selective school. There is some risk that insisting on a rigorous proof of notability will tend to exclude schools in economically deprived areas. Such schools often serve a more ethnically diverse population. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And this matters why? If less economically well off schools are less likely to be notable, oh well. We don't affirmative action for notability. JoshuaZ 18:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * TruthbringerToronto, I have seen you recently suggest "keep on an article because it was a selective school, and now you suggest "keep" because it is not a selective school... Fram 19:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per arguments above!! Audiobooks 20:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * — Possible single purpose account: Audiobooks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Delete per reasons stated by nominator. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, clearly misses WP:N. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn, or failing that merge per WP:LOCAL. Yamaguchi先生 05:49, 1 November 2006
 * Keep a good article!! Audiobooks 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment An article being "good" (whatever that means" is not a reason to keep) and adding exclamation points doesn't make the argument more persuasive. JoshuaZ 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pan Dan. Run-of-the-mill school with no adequate reliable sources to build an encyclopedic article around. Shimeru 00:44, 2 November 2006 (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.