Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copsewood College

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copsewood College

edit
Copsewood College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article without references or sources. Looks like an advertisement. Even with all the non-reliable sources and Wikipedia-clones it scores only 2350 internet hits (on Pallaskenry "Copsewood College") . Hence, it fails WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind talk 00:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Pallaskenry It is a difficult issue discussing the deletion of an article on a high school. I am going to stick to Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable an essay I wrote in response to some comments from Jimbo Wales. This could be notable if a variety of good sources was found and a well rounded article was written; however, as it stands that is not the case. If an editor is willing to step up to improve this article, it could be userfied with a redirect pointing to Palleskenry until the article is finished. If not, it should be replaced with a redirect and left. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a secondary school, thus notable per se under the consensus that has emerged here over years. Jimmy Wales has opined that he doesn't like the rule of thumb that works so well here ("Primary schools, redirect; Secondary schools, keep.") He apparently underestimates that vast amount of time that will be wasted moving to a new "Source Them All Out" standard. There are probably hundreds of thousands of schools around the world — the greenlight would be given both to every elementary school on the planet to write pages and source them to local newspapers on the one hand, and to deletionists with automated tools to go on a nominating rampage on the other ("one minute to nominate, one hour to successfully defend..."). That is, quite frankly, an undesirable thing. Here come the test cases. Let's keep an excellent system which works in practice in place — keep the secondary schools (there are sources out there in the long grass, unquestionably). Ditch the primary schools. A fair compromise between those who seek and expansive and those who seek a focused encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article on the school gives unsourced information on the principal, some random classes offered, the location of the school, and the size, in addition, it is unorganized. Are you telling me that the article, as it stands, meets notability requirements and is a benefit to the encyclopedia? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you yourself opened the can of worms, I wouldn't expect you to say anything else. Let's see what others have to say, shall we? Admittedly, this is an extremely terrible article. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur: Totally irrelevant and inadmissible argument for an AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious is this in response to me or Night of the Big Wind? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fairly obviously directed at Night of the Big Wind's statement ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Logan Talk Contributions 05:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Logan Talk Contributions 05:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jimmy Wales' talk page: I have clashed many times about completely non-notable primary and secondary schools that are supposed to be notable according to the rules of this project. What is the rationale about the policy to declare all secondary schools notable? Night of the Big Wind talk 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Worm can opened... Let's put the lid on that thing, I don't like worms. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only rationale that WikiProject Schools gives is in fact "we are too lazy to start thinking". Sorry, I don't accept that argument. Night of the Big Wind talk 10:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I endorse Carrite's analysis of the situation. The presumed notability of secondary schools and the presumed non-notability of the vast majority (though not 100%) of primary schools has served us well. Instead of spending enormous amounts of time on school AfD debates, we ought to routinely delete articles about primary schools without strong and unique notability claims, and work on expansion based on reliable sources of articles about secondary schools worldwide. I respect Jimbo Wales greatly, but we make these decisions based on consensus rather than what Jimbo says on a given day, and what Carrite and I have described here is the operative consensus that has worked well for Wikipedia for very a long time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your comments constructive and on topic. We are not discussing 'self-invented rules' here, and FWIW, the rule was not invented by WP:WPSCH. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the same rationale as Carrite and Cullen328. I understand the dissatisfaction with this article, and secondary schools are problematic for all sorts of reasons. But what notability criteria would be used? WP:ORG has very unsatisfactory application in practice - some small local businesses pass because by luck or skill they have got a press release published in the editorial pages of the press, whilst some multi-nationals and country wide companies with thousands of employees and turnover in the hundreds of millions, or more, struggle to pass AfD. Apply the same standards to schools and the effect would be even more serendipitous. As for Corpsewood College, there will clearly be a sufficient history and substance to the school to make a satisfactory school article at some point. That is not saying, of course, that articles in this state should be encouraged; as pointed out it would fit as things stand in the Pallaskenry article which itself also needs work, but that discussion is not for here. --AJHingston (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only problem is that WP:ITEXISTS is not in itself a sufficient reason to keep the article and we can't really justify not deleting an article just because it's managed to survive thus far without being deleted. Also, we need sources in the here and now to prove that this school is in itself notable. It's had 3 years to prove notability and so far there's nothing that shows it's passing notability guidelines and no reliable sources at all, not even a local article about the school's history. It might be better to redirect this to Pallaskenry#Education and get someone to userfy this article until reliable sources proving notability can be found. It is unfortunate that we don't have a separate policy from WP:GNG that's specifically for schools, but it should be noted that all notability guidelines share one common theme: they must have reliable sources, which this article does not. If someone could find even one source it'd be a different story, but there aren't any and nobody has managed to find any. I'm just worried that what might end up happening is that the article is kept on the promise that someone will find sources, then the article gets forgotten and remains largely unimproved until the next time someone lists it for AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment I like the work that I have begun to see on the article. I still maintain my argument that if one of the editors in favor of keeping this article is willing to work on it in a subpage it would be okay. While it is in a subpage a redirect should point to Pallaskenry. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Copsewood_College&oldid=1142182526"