Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Richard Gwyn Catholic High School, Barry


 * 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. "High schools are notable". - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

St Richard Gwyn Catholic High School, Barry
Does not meet Schools criteria. Hera1187 09:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Notable. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Two of the above links are minor links about buildings, one is an unsubstantiated blog and the other is a mention of a minor award that also went to 12 other schools. None of these are persuasive arguments for notability. JoshuaZ 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The blog is not unsubstantiated: Kappa 02:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as usual. Gazpacho 19:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That is not an argument. JoshuaZ 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't make verifiably false statements in the discussion, it doesn't help things. Precendent is a well established reason for keeping things,  by its own precendent.  ;) WilyD 17:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 00:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets proposed criteria. Silensor 23:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Criteria which have been specifically rejected by the community at large. JoshuaZ 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think JoshuaZ has been keeping up with current events. Kappa 03:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you explain what you mean in more detail? WP:SCHOOLS was rejected. It has since had an attempted revision which has as yet not gained community consensus. So what am I missing? JoshuaZ 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK you have been keeping up with current events, your response to Silensor is merely misleading. Kappa 00:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What is misleading? The current proposed criteria are in many ways nearly the same as the rejected criteria. JoshuaZ 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately the links given by RJH seem to be the only thing that could possibly establish any notability for this school and as explained earlier they do not. I was not able through google searching to find any other relevant links that could argue for notability at all. JoshuaZ 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, schools are notable, as usual. bbx 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Another assertion on the matter with no argument backing it up. JoshuaZ 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason to deprive users of encylopedic coverage of a verifiable and established school such as this. Kappa 02:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep worthwhile topic, with ready supply of verifiable information.  --Rob 05:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as article makes nor provides no claims to notability. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 05:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Public institutions get public money and thus have a community interest on wikipedia. However, private schools, for-profit or not, need to meet the same standards of notability for other businesses or organizations to ensure WP:V. This school, of less than 600 people, asserts nothing and fails WP:V. Once it meets notability standards it will also meet verifible standards, and thus warrant an article. There needs to be guidelines for this or every and their brother who decides to open a school is going have an article. Arbusto 05:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How does this school fail WP:V? Kappa 05:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You have one article about one grant from 2002, some obscure award with just the same of the school (is this the school mentioned in the article) from 2004, a 2004 notice to add more buildings, and a blog from the "The Anti-Jihad Pundit." To verify this school and its merits, you need more than that. Would this four links be acceptable for a article on a business?Arbusto 06:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Would these four links be acceptable for a article on a business?" Yes, they establish multiple independent non-trivial coverage from reliable sources and thus it would pass WP:CORP #1. I don't see the relevance of WP:V however. Kappa 06:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, they don't all meet WP:RS and they aren't non-trivial by how CORP is normally applied. . JoshuaZ 06:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please per rjh this is notable meets proposed guideline too Yuckfoo 18:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Silensor to allow for organic growth. Verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No one makes any claims about "organic growth" to any article other than schools. It isn't clear to me whether the term has any meaning at all or is just a catchphrase (especially since it isn't clear to me how "organic growth" differs from "growth" in this context aside from possibly sounding more convincing). JoshuaZ 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop making verifiably false claims to support an untenable position. Organic growth arguments do crop up all over the place all the time.  Are the legit?  I have no idea.  But don't let zealousness to deleting encyclopaedic content override the obligation to at least try to make true points. WilyD 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be very interested in seeing explicit counterexamples to my claim. I have never seen the statement used outside school AfDs. JoshuaZ 18:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for instance here's one about a band Articles_for_deletion/Fa_Lun_Hai_%28Farenheit%29 to pick the first one i could find. WilyD 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the example. I will refrain from making that comment in the future. Incidentally, slightly off-topic do you have an example that isn't a school where organic growth was an argument used and the article didn't end up getting deleted? JoshuaZ 18:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't say that I do. I much preer arguments of verifiability and encyclopaedic value.  Arguments like notability and organic expansion seem to be a euphanism for I got nothing. WilyD 19:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if someone wrote an article about a random friend of theirs and we declared it to be not-notable would you see that as an I got nothing argument? JoshuaZ 19:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I might. The article you imagine fails WP:V and WP:VAIN - but WP:BIO uses the word notability with respect to people - so it's not really a comparable case (since then, there is a relevent guideline or policy that discusses notability).  But it's not transferable, guidelines that set notability set specific criteria because notability isn't subjective if it's to be used for deletion per WP:NPOV WilyD 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Two questions. First, if people explain why they think something isn't notable or if they use some set of criteria that they consider to be reasonable notability criteria is it then acceptable? Second, if the existence of WP:BIO is what matters does that mean we can only make notability arguments if an essay or proposed guideline exists? This would seem to lead to the absurd result that if I write an article about my left sock it can't be deleted on lack of notability grounds since we don't have a standard for socks? (and don't any jokers dare point to WP:SOCK). JoshuaZ 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Within the context of WP:BIO or WP:CORP notability has a very specific, nonsubjective meaning. Here no such policy exists.  As for your sock, it could be deleted based on the policy WP:V - who cares about notability?  On a more practical level, I would argue that if we wanted to have a notability guideline for things generally, we'd be happily surprised to discover we already have it - WP:V - a far more neutral point of view on whether something is notable or not.  Not Do I find this notable?  but Is there a significant viewpoint that finds this notable? WilyD 21:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So notability is only a standard that we are allowed to apply if someone has an essay or proposed guideline? Does that mean that if I write a list of what I consider to be notable that is then an acceptable thing to cite since it is objective? As to the WP:V as a gatekeeper that doesn't work well with schools because many schools will be permanent stubs following WP:V yet because we have verifiable information we are forced to have articles. To use an example without the WP:V issue there might be easily enough info to write an article about a local attraction or building, should we then definitely keep that based on the same criteria? JoshuaZ 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I mean notability is a standard we should only apply if there's a guideline or policy - proposals and essays are not good for this. Will some schools stay eternal stubs?  Possibly, I have no idea.  But I don't really think stub is a criterion for deletion. WilyD 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic and meets common law standards of inclusion. No arguments have been presented for deletion that hold any water. WilyD 17:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Many schools close as no consensus and at least one has been deleted within the last few months. There isn't any "common law" standard for them. Furthermore, saying that the deletion arguments don't hold water isn't an argument but a statement. JoshuaZ 18:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For high schools, there's an obvious precendent to keep, for elementary schools its not as strong - this is a high school, however. There is a definite common law to keep all high schools.  As for the deletion "arguments" not holding water, that's only an observation.  The closing admin will be able to see it to be transparently true, however, so I just felt it appropriate to call attention to it. WilyD 18:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No there isn't any such precedent. No consensus means just that- no consensus. The fact that they are kept is inherently procedural. Furthermore, even now highschools are occasionally deleted. See for example Articles for deletion/Rochester Hills Christian School. JoshuaZ 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * One exception to a long standing tradition does not precendence destroy. Nor does no concensus vote results in keep change that high schools are kept by the common law. The precendent exists and is real.  WilyD 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No consensus does not provide any precedent. Under many common law systems (to use your favorite analogy) there are the equivalent of procedural keeps all the time. For example for the US Supreme Court if a justice is recused and the resulting vote is a tie the lower court is upheld and no precedent is established for future cases. So using your analogy these aren't keeps. Between that and the counterexamples(there are other similar counterexamples) the precedent claim bears little weight. JoshuaZ 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It does serve precendent value, which is most obvious if you consider the purpose of precedence. It makes no sense to apply standards unevenly, nor is it benficial to anyone involved.  High schools (almost) invariably end up getting kept - the precedent is that they are kept (though occasionally through no concensus - doesn't matter, the article is still kept) - and this is the precedent I appeal to.  Combined with the fact that the article passes every relevent guideline or policy that could be applied to argue for deletion, the precedent is just the icing on the cake. WilyD 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so here we disagree. No consensus does not serve the same purpose of precedent. It simply says "the community doesn't agree on this either way. To be on the safe side we will keep it for now." That isn't the same at all as the community agreeing to keep. JoshuaZ 20:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about a precendence of intention, but a precendence of outcome. WilyD 21:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A precedence of outcome is a precedenct that's merely a descriptive statement and should have no bearing on whether we treat it as precedent at all. In fact we don't apply that sort of logic- note an AfD that closes as no consensus is not treated as a relevant precedent for keeping if something becomes re-AfDed. So we don't even do that in the individual case, let alone the general. JoshuaZ 21:25, 18 September 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.