Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Philip Neri Catholic 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Philip Neri Catholic School

School not notable ENeville 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep verifiable and established school, per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep Kappa 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Northbridge, New South Wales per proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. — RJH (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa Jcuk 18:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm getting fed up with deletionist nonsense like this trying to delete OBVIOUSLY notable schools such as this one. Like Kappa says, Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep is basically irrefutable, and since no consensus means more school articles get kept, deletion nominations are basically a waste of everyone's time. --ForbiddenWord 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No offense, but "irrefutable"? IRREFUTABLE? Are you kidding? Doesn't Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete work to refute it, just as the keep arguments work to refute the delete arguments? -- Kicking222 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, they do not, because the deletionists don't have any ground to stand on. --ForbiddenWord 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Interesting. One rarely sees such a blatant argument by assertion. JoshuaZ 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No offense, but "OBVIOUSLY notable"? Old does not imply historically significant. Ohconfucius 12:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete schoolcruft like this are simply not notable and never will be. — Dunc|☺ 21:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Dunc. --Aaron 21:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Arbusto 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and INCREDIBLY STRONG DELETE of St_Philip_Neri_Classes_of_2006. The former is non-notable, and the latter is a joke. -- Kicking222 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons explained at User:Silensor/Schools, the subject is verifiable and established. Silensor 07:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What is going on here? How can this unsourced, useless article meet the criteria of WP:SCHOOLS?:

1. The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself.

No mention of this. No published works cited or mentioned.

2. The school has been or was in existence for over 50 years, due to the great likelihood of—but greater difficulty of uncovering—non-trivial historical coverage of that school.

This is the one criteria it does meet. But please, there are actually millions of non-notable schools who just happen to be old. There is no assertion of notability regarding the age or history of the school.

3. The school participates in the highest grade of the state, province or regional competitions in at least three extracurricular activities. These can include, for example, sports teams, band competitions, cheerleading competitions, engineering contests, and so forth. In addition, the school has won at least two regional championships or one national championship in any of these activities.

No mention of this.

4. The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools.

No mention of this either

5. Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff.

No mention of this

6. The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC).

No mention of this

7. The school building or campus has notable architectural features that set it apart from others.

No Mention of this either

AmitDeshwar 08:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC) — AmitDeshwar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For a user who registered just one week ago (and has just one single edit to article space) you raise some interesting questions. Who is "Striver" by the way, do you know? Silensor 08:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That means nothing - I was editing for ages with no account. --Charlesknight 11:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn Nigel ^(Talk) 12:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just another non-notable school. Prolog 12:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth; verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 18:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Northbridge, New South Wales per the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - entirely non-notable. --Charlesknight 11:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per kappa this school is notable and established Yuckfoo 04:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verifiable sources. Catchpole 07:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Has no non-trivial coverage so wouldn't even fit the inclusionist WP:SCHOOLS suggested guideline. Is completely non-notable. JoshuaZ 22:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; nn school. Carlossuarez46 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth, meets proposed guidelines. Bahn Mi 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Organic growth is just a buzzword with no meaning. Note that the proposed guideline does not have a consensus behind it. JoshuaZ 02:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If "organic growth" is just a buzzword... then so is "non notable" since policy is VERIFIABILITY NOT NOTABILITY. oh and in case your wondering... this is a KEEP.  ALKIVAR™ 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Alkivar, mind the caps please, they aren't very civil and no, notability is not a "buzzword" we have nice things like essays and proposed criteria and discussions of notability. If someone wants to write an essay attempting to define what they mean by organic growth and why this is a good thing it might become a non-buzzword but right now it is simply an undefined collection of words (I'm particularly puzzled about what in the growth would be "organic" - this is a good sign of something being a buzzword when it has nice-sounding irrelevant phrases attached). JoshuaZ 16:10, 27 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.