Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverclyde Academy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish the notability of this school per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inverclyde Academy

Inverclyde Academy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article about a non-notable secondary school has become a target for massive amounts of childish vandalism (check history). The institution itself is far too new to have any notable alumni and has not earned any significant recognition. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: My impression (correct me if wrong) is that high schools satisfy the notability criteria. This page is now protected from vandalism, so that should hopefully no longer be a concern. --Mkativerata 00:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • High schools are not granted a privileged status, they must satisfy criteria set fort in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There's simply nothing notable about this particular school and the article on it is little more than a useless liability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Then just about all the secondary schools on this page with full entries ought to be deleted. --Mkativerata 00:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Some should, some shouldn't. It's certainly not true that every school in that list should have an article about it. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
          • The deletion discussion for this article appears to have established a consensus that high schools are generally notable. --Mkativerata 01:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Sorry, no. We're here to deal with the merits of the subject as it relates to the meaning and intent of WP:NOTABILITY. For what its worth, there have been hundreds of prior deletion discussions concerning individual schools with varying results, but there isn't a lasting consensus in favor of automatically keeping an article about every school. Crappy articles don't get a free ride based on a selective reading of unrelated discussions. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Mkativerata, please don't generalize from one discussion to assume a broad consensus. There have been multiple attempts by the community to establish a firm schools guideline and all have failed. We can only say that the community often votes in favor of high schools. Dhartung | Talk 02:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Comment Hence the word generally in my above post. I do not suggest all schools should be kept. Of course some high schools are not notable. But there is nothing separating this school from the general position that articles about high schools are kept. And just because this article is substandard (although not substantially) does not mean it should not be kept. --Mkativerata 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment (2) There is also substantial independent coverage of the school - notability could be established by referring to media-reported controversies such as this. --Mkativerata 00:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
        • The controversy may be notable but I don't think that this article establishes the school as a notable educational institution. Considering the scope of coverage and the significance of the controversy, I would find it hard to write anything more than a two paragraph stub about a local news story. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete per above. I didn't know WP:CORP covered schools, but I guess it does. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Malcolmxl5 01:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sadly, this could be made into a good article, but it's not likely to be able to pass WP:N for some years yet.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 02:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This is a very significant school formed by a merger of two other notable schools. The merger has been beset by controversy. Yes it's a poor article that needs sourcing. We don't delete because of vandalism nor because an article needs expansion and sourcing; we delete if an article cannot be sourced and a G search shows that this one easily can. TerriersFan 02:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added sources so that the article now meets WP:N, cleaned it up and added encyclopaedic content. TerriersFan 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Adding a few references and an image is not enough to assert notability enough to keep the article from being deleted. The nom mentioned a lack of alumni and recognition due to being too recently constructed, as well as a common target for vandalism, not a lack of references. Despite your best intentions and your attempt to assert notability, the article should still be deleted. The Wikipedist 03:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the nom grounds are not a valid basis for deletion only failing WP:N is; and it now passes that. TerriersFan 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Only links are from User pages and Wikipedia-specific pages. Notability is asserted, but not evident. However, I do see this subject eventually being notable enough for inclusion, but right now, it is far too new. Also, too often targeted for vandalism. The Wikipedist 03:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is simply wrong - there are several external sources. Vandalism, as I say above is irrelevant and the constituent schools have individual notability. TerriersFan 04:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC) TerriersFan 04:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentAgree with the above - the notability of this school (even if not presumed for a highschool) is established by the size of the school, the impact on the community, the controversy surrounding its establishment, and the coverage it has received. --Mkativerata 04:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Constant vandalism definitely isn't enough of a reason to delete an article - if that were the case, New York City, a commonly vandalized article, would be deleted (recently Today's Featured Article). The real reason this article should be deleted is that the subject is because, well, exactly as the nom said. It is too premature to have had anything significantly notable coming from it, whether alumni or merit. A student strike like the one it had is not enough of a notability assertion IMHO. The references you provide back up the article somewhat, but not enough to change the nominators reason to nominate. Notability is asserted, but not enough to keep, for now at least. The Wikipedist 04:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, The school is new, no architectural reason to keep it. No notable alumni. The schools that it merged into also have not notable alumni.. sorry but I think it needs to go. But it was well researched and written. Too bad. Callelinea 04:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Above and beyond the clear consensus that articles for high schools (and their equivalents) are retained, this article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the [{Wikipedia:Notability]] standard. Alansohn 04:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article may be sourced, but it's not notable. The general consensus is that high schools are NOT inherently notable (it's just a small group of people who think they are). The general consensus for schools that are not notable is to delete them or merge into a article sbout the school district it is in (if such an article exists) or article on the city its located in. TJ Spyke 06:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This school is not notable. As noted above, schools do not have a special exemption from WP:N--Victor falk 11:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The school was opened by Scotland's first minister which testifies to its importance. It has already receive substantial press coverage. The school was formed by a merger between two other schools, both of which will have substantial histories which will need to be incorporated into this article. The old schools will also have their own notable alumni. A lot of expansion is still required but the article as it currently stands already demonstrates the school's notability. Dahliarose 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. BASE101() 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This particular school is reasonably notable, if only for the student strike--which is sourced. In fact, most high schools are; if enough work was done on the article, perhaps 90%. I have therefore come to the conclusion that all high school articles should be kept, in order to avoid these debates. I dont know how many people make consensus for this, but i think we're getting there. Incidentally, all school articles attract vandalism. we have good ways of dealing with that, without needing to delete them. DGG (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Our management of vandalism is far less effective with articles on schools than almost any other subject due to the inherent liability of bored kids. I'm not saying that this potential is enough to stifle the creation of high school articles; indeed, it was after attempting to repair the vandalism to Inverclyde Academy that I began to notice the paucity of interesting or notable context. A student strike, by itself, is hardly notable outside of the local stage, as evidenced by the lack of coverage of this event in national Scottish newspapers. The events leading up to the strike are minor footnotes in the history of Inverclyde Council as a whole and would be better served through a brief treatment in a general article on the history of the educational district. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. It would be quite inappropriate to include this school in a page on Inverclyde Council. UK schools do not operate in the same way as American schools. Funding would have been provided by central government. Very few new schools are built in the UK and the fact that so much money was provided for the new school is notable in itself. The local council would only oversee the admissions policy and provide administrative support. Furthermore local council boundaries change on a regular basis. Dahliarose 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and the fact that many of the arguments are based upon the mistaken notion that WP:CORP applies to educational institutions. Smashville 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, WP:N applies to them; and, by it, it is not notable.--Victor falk 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I would argue that it is a mistaken notion that essays overrule policy in deciding what is and isn't worthy of consideration. Assuming that all schools deserve articles is equivalent to taking a stance which stonewalls actual discussion. Would you care to make a non-vague comment about this particular educational institution? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What's "vague" about citing WP:OUTCOMES? It's called citing precedent. Smashville 04:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's citing the essay author's opinion, one based on a series of deletion discussions which took place in 2005. Your comment is vague because it doesn't really say anything about this school. And yes, schools do fall under the specific purview of WP:CORP. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The school is not only notable, it is more notable than most, and has the third party sources to show for it. The "childish vandalism" cited by the nominator is ludicrous, when articles are vandalized we revert the vandalism and block the vandal, not delete the article. Get real. Silensor 05:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable school as established by article, confirmed in discussion. Wikidemo 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per TJ Spyke and Voxpuppet. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 19:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wow, the discussion is exactly split. I'm leaning towards keeping in such cases. Bearian 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The school is reasonably notable, and the rationale for deletion is misguided. RFerreira 21:04, 11 October 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.