Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King George V High School

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 delete. Why didn't anyone notice this entire article is an obvious copy and paste of the school's webpage? Rewrite in your own words with information based on reliable sources... that it's about a school isn't an excuse to infringe on copyrights, include unreliable information and so forth. W.marsh 17:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King George V High School

Article is not encyclopedic and is not a famous school London UK (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Under the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL, schools over 50 years old are considered notable. Wikipedia also has a history of keeping articles on high schools (as opposed to elementary/grammar/'first eight or nine years of education' schools). A Malaysian high school is as notable as an American high school (or the equivalent in the UK). Gotta love that school song, too. --Charlene 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that WP:SCHOOLS was rejected. JoshuaZ 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Not true, according to its very own page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'm sorry. There seems to be some disagreement over whether to put the rejection template there. See the history. JoshuaZ 07:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment In that case, why call the proposal rejected? Reading over the history, it appears as though there is no consensus over whether the proposal will not reach consensus, which would suggest that it's still a flawed but vaguely viable test to apply under these circumstances. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Very weak keep based on the age of the institution. I wouldn't mind seeing more notability than just the fact that it's been around for a while, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Given the general lack of verifiability aside from that provided by the school, delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been unable to locate any documentation at all other than the school's autobiography on its web site and this empty web page. Uncle G 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, it seems as though it just sneaks over WP:SCHOOLS, which may say more about the proposed policy than the subject of this article, but in the absence of anything else, that's pretty much all we have. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't say anything about WP:SCHOOL. WP:SCHOOL explicitly excludes autobiographies. Uncle G 12:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, so it does. Don't mind me, it's been a long week already. I'll amend my vote
Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable for reasons given many times over. Needs a serious copyedit though. -- Necrothesp 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friends, forget the divisive question of notability. Come, let us gather under the umbrella of WP:V and WP:NOT. Unless someone finds more substantial sources than directory info, which is all I could find, the article has to be deleted because no non-directory info about the school can be verified. Pan Dan 03:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it is a high school and due to age of school. TheRanger 04:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of any non-autobiographical sources, which is one thing that WP:SCHOOL focuses upon, should be a concern for you. Uncle G 12:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rename The title should really be a disambiguation page, due to there being a King George V College in Southport, United Kingdom. --SunStar Net 12:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the one in Southport is called King George V College then it doesn't need to be a disambig page, since it has a different name. They just need links to each other at the top of each page. -- Necrothesp 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per comments of Uncle G and Pan Dan. This school doesn't even meet WP:V which is non-negotiable. This occurs even before we get to notability issues. JoshuaZ 13:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Valid high school. Article appears to be a duplicate of SMK King George V. — RJH (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "valid" or not, it doesn't meet WP:V. JoshuaZ 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Yes it does. The school has a website. Its existence is therefore verifiable. Whatever else may be in the article is irrelevant. That can be edited. The fact that the school exists, however, is wholly verifiable, and that's all we need for an article, even if only for a stub (which are valid, incidentally, although some people seem to be arguing that they're not). -- Necrothesp 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Anyone who believes that the existence of a web site for the subject unequivocally proves that subject's existence has not learned the lesson of Jamie Kane (AfD discussion). The existence of a web site does not prove the existence of a subject. And unexpandable perpetual stubs have always been subject to deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which has stated this (in various ways over the years) since 2003. If you want to show that an article can be had here, show that the primary WP:SCHOOL criterion is satisfied by citing sources. Show that non-trivial published works that are not autobiographies exist, using which which a stub can be expanded. Autobiographies, of people or of organizations, published on their own web sites or otherwise, are not good sources. I've shown you the empty web page that I found. Please cite your sources. Uncle G 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh please, have you actually looked at the website? Honestly, anyone who thinks that's all made up is being just a little paranoid. Of course it proves the school's existence. Anyway, there are also numerous other mentions of the school just a Google search away. And why would this be an unexpandable stub? Another wild statement with no basis in reality. Stubs are valid. Period. And as for WP:SCHOOL, all together now...WP:SCHOOL is not an official policy. Please stop quoting it as if it were. -- Necrothesp 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, soundly fails WP:V. —ptk✰fgs 21:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a good article!! Audiobooks 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) — Audiobooks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Again being a "good article" is not a reason to keep something and adding exlamation points doesn't make it any more persuasive. JoshuaZ 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Still researching this one. Silensor 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless historical claims can be verified by reliable sources. Shimeru 01:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until verifiable, non-directory, thrid-party sources give the info needed for creating an article which indicates the noteworthyness of this school (I don't doubt its existence though) Fram 12:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is impossible to adhere to the policies WP:V and WP:NPOV in the absnence of independent sourcing. The results just a google search away produce no reliable sources about this school.[1] There are only 15 total in English, and #2 and #3 are for a school in Canada, which last I checked was in a different part of the world than Malaysia. As we can't possibly meet the policies, the fact that there is no claim of encyclopedic notability is just icing on the cake, not the real reason that deletion is required. GRBerry 03:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my belief that all schools at the secondary level and above are notable. Yamaguchi先生 05:10, 4 November 2006
Delete this one doesnt even pass my low keep standard for schools. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:12, 4 November 2006 (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.