Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Church High School

Add links
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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Church High School

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Bert Church High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sourcing required to meet ORG. Articles limited to event listings and mentions of return to live schooling and similar, but no in depth coverage of the school or its theatre. Star Mississippi 23:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the reference was in-depth, which I agree with Star Mississippi that it isn't, there still needs to be an in-depth regional/national reference for something to be notable. The fact that it took you 30 minutes to find a trivial local source is probably a good indicator that one doesn't exist. Maybe if we all spent a couple more hours of digging we could find a few more local, special interest news stories about their annual bake sale, Sadie Hawkins Day dance or similar, but that's not how notability works. One reason is that per WP:REPUTABLE we only use reputable sources and reputable sources are the "analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." Special interest local news stories are very rarely, if ever, any of those things. The story you added about them winning the award definitely does not contain the author's analysis, opinions, or views of the topic. Maybe analysis, but if so extremely tangentially and in a very run of the mill way. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that some of the special interest stories can have a place as long as they are merely supplementing the larger notability of the story. The source I added is a foot in the door suggesting that there is archival coverage of the history of this school that suggests it had an importance in Alberta history. The Calgary Herald, btw, is certainly reputable: It is one of if not the largest newspapers distributed in Calgary, which is Alberta's largest urban center, and the paper is the 10th largest in Canada according to List of newspapers in Canada by circulation.
The real question is does the school itself have notability, or is it moreso its namesake that does. That's what further digging would have to reveal.  DiscantX 23:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see you were probably referring to the Airdrie Today source. While I agree that sources like that shouldn't be used for things such as bake sales etc, they can be used if the topic itself is notable and if there is no reason to believe that the source is inaccurate or biased. For example, I found an article about a high school play. Not notable. We can all agree on that. An award that received the attention of the Alberta Premier? Notable, but not in and of itself enough to confer notability to the school. I added another article from the same publication discussing some of the history of the school. While yes it is a local paper, there is no reason to believe the source is unreliable in this specific circumstance. Each article needs to be looked at independently.  DiscantX 23:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The paper can generally be reliably, but that doesn't mean everything they print automatically fits with WP:REPUTABLE or counts as a source that works for notability. Like they could print the standings of a local sports league, but we still can't use it for notability per WP:REPUTABLE because sports league standings are not the "analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." At least we can agree on the story about the play not showing notability though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing specifc and substantial. I was for many years in favor of keeping all high schools--a very much disputed consensus eventually found otherwise, and I don't want to challenge it again. This is exactly the kind of article the discussion was about, and I think having found a consensus on how to handle them, we should follow it. For something like this, if my view fails to be supported in the general argument, I will accept that, and follow the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize that the topic area of high schools has been in the past an area of debate on Wikipedia. And where the consensus fell. But I would like to put this out there. To what degree can you honestly expect a high school to receive national recognition in order for it to be notable? Or provincial recognition? The truth is most schools are only known locally, but many of them were fundamental parts of the local history. Are we to delete all of these articles because... why, exactly? There are articles that will never be written. The daycare down the road is unlikely to ever have a Wikipedia article. But one of the first high schools of a municipality? I think that in of itself is notable.  DiscantX 14:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the junction we're at. While at one point in time, secondary schools were presumed notable. When notability shifted more to in depth sourcing (true too for orgs that survived AfD a decade ago but are now deleted), school outcomes shifted to be in line with companies. There are probably hundreds of millions schools worldwide. The vast majority are not notable. Community staples sure, and they can be discussed in the town's article (or in this case Bert Church's legacy) but the schools themselves? Not consequential to a worldwide readership. I'd argue most schools aren't even state/provincially notable. Just my.02 Star Mississippi 16:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This runs a serious risk of over emphasis on urban areas that by their nature have more media coverage than rural. There are schools out there that have absolutely no coverage anywhere other than primary sources, for which I would say they are not deserving of an article. But I feel if you can at least find some secondary sources discussing the history of the school then that history is of importance.
A worldwide readership is a readership that comes from many different populations, and just because one article is not of interest to one person doesn't mean it would not be of interest to someone else. For example, I have very little interest in schools in New York. Yet they have articles such as William E. Grady CTE High School, Sheepshead Bay High School, and George W. Wingate High School (semi-randomly selected from List of high schools in New York City) that have no more notability or even less than Bert Church. There are many of these articles out there. Do we mass delete all of them?  DiscantX 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is an over emphasis in Wikipedia on subjects related to urban areas because the nature of them having more media coverage, but it's not our problem. Otherwise what's the alternative? Have some arbitrary standard where any subject having to do with a rural area below a certain population is de-facto notable or something? How would that any better? Like is having to say to someone "The standard of notability is the town having a population of 500 people or less. Whereas, your town's population is 510 people. So your school isn't notable. Sorry, but it's just to urban for our taste." really any better then what we currently have? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying this at all to change your mind, we have differing opinions which is fine -- because they're opinions and neither of us is objectively right. No, we definitely don't mass delete any. While @Adamant1 did absolutely nothing wrong in PRODding, nor did you in challenging, I *personally* feel schools aren't suitable for PROD because they almost always require a conversation. In my personal opinion, conversation helps, whether determine it should be deleted, merged or something else. SuggestBot seems to think I want to fix every school in NYC. This conversation will not help in that respect. If the bot gave me your three I'd probably pass on Wingate/Sheepsheard - defunct and not of personal interest, but take a hatchet to Grady if it's not G12 (haven't looked yet, but State-certified three-year sequence including design and installation of sanitary plumbing and heating systems. doesn't read as independent to me. Are there NYC schools more notable than Alberta? Yes. But they're not notable because they're in NYC. Museums is an area of personal interest and we run into a lot if this there as well. Star Mississippi 01:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my point, which I think you understand (though may or may not agree with), is that these school deletions feel arbitrary in that it is real simple to pick and choose many of these high schools that would fail the same smell test that Bert Church may or may not end up failing. I chose those New York articles because it was a large urban area outside of Canada. It did not take me long to find them. I can find some in Category:Schools in Chicago, Category:Schools in Melbourne. or Category:Schools in Berlin. So actually, maybe I will eat my words. It has nothing to do with urban vs. rural. What really is the selection process for deleting these articles then?  DiscantX 08:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no selection process. In the main people come across articles that do not meet inclusion criteria and nominate them for deletion. You are free to nominate other articles for deletion that you do not feel meet inclusion criteria. There are huge amounts of them all over the place, so other stuff exists is never a good argument for keep. The history of Wikipedia and the poor state of inclusion criteria when it started means that an article existing in no way demonstrates the article meets inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that, I'm much more selective about what I PROD then I use to be. Especially when it comes to schools. Since it seems like the ability to find references or not for them is extremely finicky. I don't think that means they shouldn't be nominated for deletion though, but doing it through AfD instead of PROD does seem to be more effective at making sure there's a fair chance of the article being kept if it should be. On the "selection process" question, like Johnpacklambert says there isn't really one. For me it's mainly related to what I'm reading about, researching, or interested at the time. Which is mostly random. Somedays it's hospitals, somedays schools, somedays just schools in Africa, somedays only Catholic schools in the Congo. Somedays it's none of those and I'll just work on Commons organizing postcards. There isn't really any rhyme or reason to it. Like two years ago I PRODed and AfDed a lot of Seventh Day Adventist hospitals that weren't notable. Hell if I could tell you exactly why it was that subject. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a Newspapers.com search, but all I could find was coverage from the late 90's about an epidemic of teen suicides in that city. It seems that Canadian schools lack regional coverage that most large American schools have. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing here is not on the level to meet ORG. As scorpions points out there is not substantial sourcing covering this institution, but just incidental mentions in articles about other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily enough sourcing available to meet WP:GNG as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks sources to meet WP:GNG. Claiming that such sourcing is available without presenting any is useless, and a bad habit. Fram (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That editor seems to like to mass state that in secondary school related discussions without showing it is so. Also, the requirements of organizational notability are slightly more stringent than GNG. We do not keep all organizational articles that meet GNG. Although we have never decided which one we apply to secondary educational institutions, in part because there are some editors that assert things like the comment just above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have let my opinion on the subject be known. I think it is a broader issue than Bert Church, and I don't think that the issue can be solved here. There is a problem, in my opinion, with the deletion process of Wikipedia that chooses a very broad definition of notability, and then selectively chooses which criteria to apply it.  DiscantX 10:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Interesting debate but I support keeping this article. — Ret.Prof (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure your aware WP:AUD says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." How exactly do references only from news outlets that are in Airdrie satisfy that? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience (WP:AUD) is not a requirement for non-profit educational institutions per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools which says that a non-profit educational institution "must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both" while for-profit educational institutions must also satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Since Bert Church High School passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline which does not require coverage in non-local media, Bert Church High School is notable.

Cunard (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know why you think that exception exists. It would be weird if Wikipedia become an encyclopedia of information purely on non-profit schools. That's not very fair to for-profit ones. Anyway, I think WP:AUD is important here in practice anyway. We can both look at the coverage of local topics in Wikipedia and see that there isn't a large amount of articles on every local non-profit organization out there. Including educational ones. So whatever the guideline says in no day we just except articles about every non-profit organization that has local news coverage. Which, really is all of them. I could easily find local news coverage of the non-profit homeless shelter where I live, local food bank, non-profit employment agency Etc. etc. but I doubt anyone including you will argue in good faith that there should be articles about any of them in Wikipedia. Actually, maybe you would, but it's clearly not the norm or consensus to just be like "non-profit organization + local news coverage = inherently notable" and call it good there even if you and a few other people want to act like it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As recorded in the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, the community consensus is to allow non-profit educational institutions to pass the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. I did not participate in the community discussions that led to this wording so I do not know why "that exception exists" and will not speculate as to why. A new community consensus would be needed to change this guideline to require that a non-profit educational institution like Bert Church High School pass both the notability guidelines for organizations and the general notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know the guideline exists. I asked why you think it does. "The guideline exists because the guideline exists" is just circular. Even if we ignore the guideline, I'm sure you have an opinion about what the difference between a non-profit school and for-profit one is. In no way am I asking for or want the guideline to be changed because I'm interested in your opinion about it. It's weird you'd treat me like I am. It's a simple question and there should be a simple answer to it. Especially if it keeps coming up like it does. Personally, I'd like it not to. People vote delete in AfDs about non-profit schools because they don't pass WP:NORG all the time and no one says jack about it. So whatever the guideline says I find it hard to believe it's something anyone really cares about or follows. At least outside of a few people who use the caveat in the guideline as form of de-facto notability for local, non-profit schools. Often times it's the same people who also cite WP:IAR whenever it's convenient for them to. Personally, I could care less, but I would like it to stop coming up and it's ridiculous that a bunch of articles on non-profit schools are being kept, while articles on for-profit ones are getting gutted, purely because some special interest local newspaper decided to do a minor piece about their annual bake sale. I highly doubt that's what the guideline has in mind. It's called a "notability" guideline for a reason. I'm sure you would agree with me that the word "notability" doesn't mean "every day, mundane topics that can apply to every school." --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2022 (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/Bert_Church_High_School&oldid=1069486095"