Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Aldersley High School

1132:- Most of us know that these subjects have sourcing, tons of sourcing. It's not always online, but it's there. We (collective of wikipedia editors) could spend hundreds of hours trying to prove this point, and might or might not "win" this particular discussion, but the information is there and it will probably be found, then the article will be written again. In the process, valuable effort is wasted. If we're going to build the encyclopedia, we don't need to spend all our time fighting amongst ourselves on something where the outcome is really already known. That's why Outcomes was written, and although it may have been abused it certainly served us well. We can either respect our traditions or we can devolve into an anarchy of AfD wars. This school certainly exists, and we should keep the article and give it time to improve. 551:, so while it may be a reliable source to check facts, I don't think it is a reliable source to establish notability in this case, otherwise every single mention in government public records would establish notability, so if my house is listed publicly in some government record, it would be notable, and I think that simply is not the case. Basically, as I see it you really presented two instances of arguably significant coverage in a reliable source. Per 1011:. Thank you, I now modified nominating with 'incessant'. I don't mean All, but certainly I mean many, "many" in every sense. Then you second question, I already said it is just basic Arithmetic, that's going through AfDs and sifting the High schools ones and kept watching them till they close. On majority of them I neither voted nor commented just interested in the outcome. And I am sure this AfD will only substantiate my findings. – 918:

put the statistics on my user space. You'll surely find amazing pattern. but here is some gist: 1- 95% of high school resulted in keep (some speedy). 2. Nominators who nominated schools show reluctance to do it again after failed nom. 3. Though majority of the schools at AfD are (stubs, real stubs), people keep voting keep!. 4-In "theory" Schools are organizations and must fulfill

1365: 1175:,I can't be responsible for fixing every problem, right now. That doesn't mean that everything, created by anyone, that I don't fix this second should be destroyed. Perhaps if you would spend a small percentage of the time you've spent responding to every comment here to improving the article, it would have good article status by now. :) 917:

the reason I said that is, please get time and analyze concluded AfDs for at least 30 days, and skips some days at random. (This is to give some randomness, though not based on any formal statistics method). You'll find amazing pattern. I did it, though it is informal and now don't have the time to

792:

unless official community-wide consensus changed the status quo 'incessant' nominating high schools for deletion is at least waste of time at worst disruption. As I said in many AfDs I don't generally consider them notable worthy of being encyclopedic material, but the consensus of the community do.

1387:

I'm not saying that they are the most vandalised articles. Some of the most vandalised articles are on very prominent, important topics, and should obviously be kept, whereas I would argue that time spent keeping school articles free of vandalism is wasted, as those articles are generally of little

754:

as per long standing practice on secondary schools. Various offline sources definitely exist including government reports showing notability. And (not that this really is a policy reason, but seems to me to be fairly important anyway), this school is at least as significant as the hundreds of other

985:

may be right about the community's standard practice being to keep high school articles. I went to check closed AfD's and I found that in a random sample of ten high school articles, the finding in eight was to keep and in the other two it was no consensus. So I think that next time I see a high

297:

unless significant coverage can be found; my own search yielded only passing mentions. One would expect that, since this is a modern school in Britain, significant coverage would be available on-line if it exists at all. If the article is kept, it must be pruned to include only verifiable

714:

states, "Reasons for deletion include.... Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." WP:DP then incorporates as policy WP:GNG, and because it is also basic policy, it can supersede WP:V if this latter has a less stringent criteria in the WP:DP jurisdiction.

537:, " 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". One of the 390:. The point is that high schools (which actually exist) can't avoid passing GNG, because there are so many official registries, Ofsted reviews etc. that each and every school which exists will implicitly have a footprint which passes GNG. They may not be notable, but they will be 1303:. These nominations seem to be in bad faith. Why would anyone working on a encyclopedia of human knowledge gain pleasure (if the article for deletion passes) at seeing verifiable knowledge of local institutions be sent down the deletion hole? I honestly don't understand it. 1294:

makes a good point as do the others who rightfully call these nominations a waste of time given that schools are very notable places of interest to communities and just because the sources are not there now, does not mean they can't be found , see also

1095:- Secondary schools of confirmed existence have long been regarded as inherently notable at AfD, much in the same way that rivers, mountains, villages, and professional athletes are regarded as inherently notable. I support this longstanding consensus. 793:

I hope this will be soon close as speedy keep. There are plethora of articles of non notable people, product and spam of companies and musicians that is where we should direct our nominating power to rid Knowledge of them not educational institutions –

168: 433:

Official records are primary sources and don't contribute to notability. If we start considering government and regulator records as evidence of notability then every business and every civil servant would be notable.

630:

I wonder how many court records meet the 11 page threshold, and if you think every published court case accessible to the public that meets said threshold should then be considered notable for Knowledge standards.

1522:

per sources, both from newspapers and the government, which cover the school in-depth. Sure, the recent RFC means we can't just assert an article should be kept without sources, but they exist in this case. ----

607:

does not mention notability but says "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Knowledge article and is an appropriate source for that content."

871:

Please share the link to the official community-wide consensus. I direct my power in simply looking at the recent changes log and work through the list, and that's how this school came to my attention.

416: 926:

while in "reality" at AfD, all that school needs is to exists, having web presence (primary source) is another keep, keep. So that's why I said incessant nomination (not first time) can be disruptuve –

1441: 493:(I edited your comment because I think that you intended to link to the news articles themselves and not the Knowledge articles of the sources. If that's not the case simply change it back). 538: 464: 1407: 847:

If you state the same things over and over again, you can expect that I try to rebuke them over and over again. You know that it is only a so-called consensus, flimsy at best.

162: 121: 1406:

I really agree to with one part of your comment here, that is High schools have very little encyclopedic value and this is not the first place I am saying this: Don't forget;

555:, "There is no fixed number of sources required..., but multiple sources are generally expected." Please provide more evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. 515:, which is what I imagine they intended to do. In general, it is not a good idea to edit others' comments unless they are seriously broken and causing technical problems. 684:

as WP:V is a basic policy and thus supersedes WP:GNG (guideline); independent sourcing of any kind is what satisfies WP:V, regardless of whatever objections about it.

1210: