Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westside Christian College

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Westside Christian College

Westside Christian College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable school. No assertion of notability has been made, nor have any sources been provided that could support any claim of notability. A PROD tag removed with the comment "remove prod - can't be reinstated per WP:PROD - use AfD if you think it should be deleted". Note the school is already mentioned in the Goodna, Queensland article. Mattinbgn\talk 09:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Phil Bridger was wrong to twice remove the PROD as this AfD is a waste of everyone's time. —Moondyne 09:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • comment. Schools are no longer speedy deletion candidates. PROD is for uncontroversial and uncontested deletes and secondary school deletions are controversial by nature. So here we are. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Even a school article like this? I'll take your word for it and apologise to Phil Bridger. —Moondyne 11:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Would you care to point out which of those links are reliable independent sources? On the first page of links I see their own page, a independent schools site with no actual content on the school, a MySpace page and a entry on a register of playgrounds. The second page is much the same. Typing the school name into Google and counting the hits has no bearing on the usefulness of the links found. Worse, the rescue attempts on schools often lead to articles that are indiscriminate collections of information with content added from any source that can be found from a google search with little attempt to prepare an actual encyclopaedic article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not pass WP:N. I've gone through the first 10 pages of Google results in User:TerriersFan's search and don't see any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". All that's there are a handful of websites published by the school and organisations closely related to it and a few dozen trivial mentions on other websites (eg, its won some routine grants, its students take part in competitions and it's cited as a satistifed customer on a payroll software company's website - big deal). Nothing at all comes up on Google news either. [1] --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep we have consistent held in the most recent past months that every high school is notable -- on the basis that all or almost all of them prove to have sources for notability when sufficiently investigated. consensus can change, and over the past year this is what it seems to have changed to. DGG (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want to appear argumentative, but where was this decided? If it is purely from previous AfD discussions, then surely this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed - and agree with Matt. Also independent high schools have different sourcing situations to state or denominational private ones, as the sources are almost always self-published and information is very tightly controlled as no obligation for disclosure exists. (I should know, I went to two of them.) As such, probably WP:CORP is one way in which to see the organisation. The problem in saying "such schools are notable" is that the only way they can meet WP:N is in ways which risk BLP - i.e. a school of this nature may be notable because criminal offences took place there that made media impact. Orderinchaos 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without actual reliable sources (discussing its actual real-world impact or notice), this is just a directory listing. And no, high schools are NOT automatically exempt from standard notability requirements. --Calton | Talk 10:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and re-direct to Goodna, Queensland - Most schools of this type are notable, but for this one, after a detailed search, I have had trouble finding any significant encyclopedic material. There is enough material available however, for a better mention of the school in the local area article, so a re-direct and merge are appropriate, outright deletion is not (and rarely is for schools). Re-directs are cheap and if material can be found (offline perhaps?) to meet WP:N, the article can be recreated very easily. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, or merge and redirect per Camaron. The school is not notable, but basic information in line with policy may be added to another article. However I have trouble seeing what exactly, as most of the information is primary-sourced. Orderinchaos 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Per Camaron. Twenty Years 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
the argument is that such a high percentage is notable that is is better to keep a few non-notable schools in than to discuss them one by one, and probably make at least the same proportion of errors in both directions after much ado about them. It's interesting looking at the variability here--this argument has been accepted in every high school nomination for the last 6 or 7 weeks. Yes consensus can change, but it should be more stable than month by month reversals, unless the reason we are here is re-argue the same things at AfD to watch the fluctuations. 01:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep — If it's an actual college that exists, it's notable enough for an article (all colleges should have their own wiki articles). But the article needs more content. If that doesn't happen it should be put up for deletion. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment To clarify, in case there was confusion, this article is about a High School not a college in the sense of a university. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply Oh I see. Well, give it some time then, and see if it manages to establish notability. If not, another AfD. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Isn't that a WP:CRYSTAL-type argument? If the school obtains notability an article can always be created for it. Until it does so it by definition doesn't pass WP:N --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Reply Well, the article is a stub. I don't see the rush in deleting it. Notify the creator of the article and see if he can patch together some notability and pehaps also a well written article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per DGG and EliasAlucard. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, doesn't WP:SCHOOLS state that most high schools will be notable and so AfD is generally a bad call? Hobit (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is a proposed guideline only and has no chance of gaining consensus in its current form. As such it holds no special place in AfD discussions. Notability is not decided as a class but on an individual basis for each article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Other than Music of course :-) Hobit (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not so: it's covered by WP:MUSIC, which is an accepted notability guideline (unlike WP:SCHOOL, which has been rejected several times) --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not so. There has been little if any rejection to the portions of proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL that relate to high schools, in its latest incarnation, which has been cited in AFD's for the past couple of months with no real controversy. The main contention with WP:SCHOOL passing community consensus as a guideline has been to the bits about grammar schools and other primary schools. WP:SCHOOL is de-facto in effect, even if not de jure, as can be easily verified by reviewing WP:OUTCOMES or looking over the AfD closures in delsort category schools-related discussions. And anybody can cite any policy, guideline, essay, or even their own radical new ideas as their justification for their !vote, so all this debate about the status of WP:SCHOOL is a bit (pardon the pun) academic. JERRY talk contribs 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment No one said it couldn't be cited, just that the original comment "Also, doesn't WP:SCHOOLS state that most high schools will be notable and so AfD is generally a bad call?" is using a guideline that has not got demonstrated community consensus. WP:OUTCOMES clearly states "the fact that a precedent exists should not be interpreted as prima facie evidence that a particular topic is entitled to an article" and with schools that most are not kept but closed as no consensus which is an entirely different thing. Wikipedia:Notability (schools) will not get consensus while it includes this clause - "High schools/secondary schools are regarded as notable unless encyclopaedic material is not available." which attempts to squeeze in the concept of "inherent notability" in the back door. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep looks a valid stub, potential to expand. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - if it's verified as a high school no reason not to let it remain as a stub form. Has there been specific searches of the archives of the local papers? I don't know the area at all to know what the appropriate media sites would be, but that could be a good place to look. matt91486 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (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.