Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooster School (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   00:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wooster School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable promotional article.  Programming Geek talk to me 13:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: There seem to be quite a few sources supporting the school's notability. Secondary school notability is certainly a hot-button topic, but I think this school is notable. The article certainly needs some work, but I don't think it is a lost cause. bojo  &#124;  talk  13:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: Upon further review and consideration, I think the subject may be non-notable. It's hard to separate a school from its notable alumni and the like. It is certainly tempting to say a school is notable due to its age, but this is a slippery slope. Subjects are not notable just because of their age. I'm changing my vote to a weak delete. bojo  &#124;  talk  02:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree with Bojo. Article definitely needs some work, but there are enough sources to support notability. - Xenxax (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Source 1 is just statictics. Source 2 is about a non-notable alum who plays guitar from 1990. Source 3 is a primary source about above. Source 5 is a deadlink Source 6 is a deadlink Source 7 is about another non-notable musician alum Source 8 has only a passing reference Source 9 has only a passing reference Source 10 is GreatSchools, which documents every school in the nation Sources 11 and 12 do nothing to establish notability Source 13 is from the town's historical society Source 15 is the school's website Source 16 doesn't establish notability Sources 17 and 18 are about a new expansion Sources 19 through 21 are not establishing notability Source 22 isn't really about the school Source 23 is a grant to the school (doesn't make the school notable) Source 24 is a website about a school organization.
 * Comment: I can't say I understand User:Xenxax and User:bojo1498's claim:

The page simply doesn't pass notability guidelines.  Programming Geek talk to me 15:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Still Keep: This school is over 90 years old and has notable alumni. By the way, source 2 and 3 refer to Tracy Chapman who has won numerous awards for her music, including 4 Grammy Awards; as a result, she certainly qualifies as notable. This article was already nominated for deletion in 2007; the response was 7 Keeps and only 2 Comments against keeping. - Xenxax (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , can you unbold one of your keep comments? You're only supposed to "vote" once. Tracy Chapman is of course notable, but notability isn't inherited (by the school). Also, the outcome of a previous AfD doesn't bind a current AfD - especially if it was 10 years ago. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * this isn't really an argument, though. The outcome of a ten-year-old AFD doesn't affect this, this discussion is about the notability of this institution. Article should be deleted per actual arguments above.
 * It's entirely an argument and has nothing to do with the previous AfD. Our consensus has long been that secondary schools are notable. It's a secondary school, ergo it's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an invalid argument, and that supposed consensus, which contradicted the longstanding schools guideline, was officially rejected by the community earlier this year: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Rebb  ing  14:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion has already been had and largely rejected as a (deliberate) misinterpretation by the deletionists of what the discussion you cite was actually about. The result was not to formalise the consensus, not to deny it. The consensus has been come to over countless AfDs; one discussion does not completely destroy it, especially when that was not the issue under discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability. Per recently-reaffirmed community consensus, schools are held to the same standards as other organizations, see NSCHOOLS, and, per longstanding precedent and consensus, significant coverage in reliable, independent sources—not age, association with notable subjects, or passing media mentions—is the touchstone of notability. Rebb  ing  14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a a distinguished, highly rated secondary school with a raft of notable alumni and oft-mentioned "self-help" and diversity policies that enable some of those distinguished students to attend.  Multiple coverage in sources like the New York Times  and elsewhere   This is exactly the kind of school article that the RfC indicated should not start sucking up editor energies at AfD.  Passes GNG and emphatically notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the New York Times. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * obvious keep Never mind the precedents: running the GBooks search discloses plenty of references. Yes, the article is terrible, like a lot of these private school articles, but that's a different problem. Mangoe (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage found by Arxiloxos. Altamel (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Arxiloxos and TonyBallioni. I also agree that some of the delete voters are misrepresenting the outcome of the recent RfC. A read of the paragraph on schools under WP:CORP would also be beneficial to those voting delete. I find it hard to imagine a legit school in the US or Britain not meeting that standard, which is the official standard for notability on schools, not the paragraph in the school article guidelines on notability.  John from Idegon (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a 90-year-old institution amongst independent schools. As argued in the first AfD, ten years ago, a school can be considered notable in part by the notability of its alumni, since the whole purpose of a school is to educate and send out its graduates into the community and the larger world. FWIW, I have been a teacher at a proprietary college and am a public school teaching fellow. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find it understandable that because of the recent confusion about school notability, a school or really borderline importance might be listed at AfD, but this is a major US Independent school with a long history and notable alumni. The only explanation I can find for the nomination os the exceptionally gushy prose, which I am about to tone it down substantially  DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (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.