Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berwick Grammar School (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berwick Grammar School

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is sourced only to the website for the subject. Wikipedia is supposed to be built on indepdent sources, otherwise we will become just a lightly annotated directory of the internet. The previous deletion nomination was removed since this is a secondary school. However since then we have realized that having articles on every secondary school every in the world is just unsustainable, and that the once proposed limiting factor of only always including extant institutions would give us more presentist bias than we already have. Articles sourced only to the subject's own website should not stand for 12 year John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reason for deletion no longer stands -- article is no longer sourced only to the subject :) Secondary school notability is a relatively low bar, and it frankly wasn't difficult to find a bare minimum of referencing -- I suspect I could do quite a bit better if I really went at it. Article needs quite a bit of cleanup, as high school articles virtually always do, but that's not an AfD matter. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the good reasons given by Vaticidalprophet. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since I closed the previous deletion discussion as 'keep' in 2011. --Bduke (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the subject of this article, a school, passes the guideline for notability of an organization, which is the applicable notability guideline for schools. The this school has "attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product" and it is therefore notable enough to justify its own article. The sources are listed as references in the article: articles from the South Bourke and Mornington Journal, The Argus, and the Herald Sun. - tucoxn\^talk 14:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ideally there would be more sourcing, but the notability is there. StarM 15:26, 8 February 2021 (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.