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. TigerShark (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Junior 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)

Shaky notability, mainly based on irrelevant details and listing. A WP:BEFORE gives nothing significant, so fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There may be stuff here worth mentioning in a general article on educational structure in New Zealand, but an article on an individual school is not the way to cover such broad topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I noted in the previous Afd, the "controversy" has been overstated. Both that, and the redundant prediction that it would be "a model for future middle level schooling" in NZ might be worth including in Education in New Zealand, leaving nothing left to sustain this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to North Harbour, New Zealand#Education HenryTemplo (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Keep per Jacona HenryTemplo (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would you consider a redirect or merge to North Harbour, New Zealand#Education or Education in New Zealand? There is definitely not the same move to Keep as in previous AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitively keep I was amused when I saw this article pop up as an AfD because it makes absolutely no sense to delete it. This is because there are articles on almost all New Zealand secondary schools that satisfy the criteria to be Wikipedia articles, so why would this school be any different. The lack of calls for keep on this AfD is irrelevant as both of the previous AfDs had clear arguments in favor of keeping the article which still stand and have not been well refuted. Generally, users external to New Zealand - who are overwhelmingly featured on this AfD - are not well placed to comment on the notability of New Zealand subjects. Other New Zealand secondary school articles (see Template:Schools in Auckland) often include government data about the school, information about its demographic, school history, etc. As has been mentioned in the previous AfDs, this particular school is more notable than other schools (that don't get regularly subjected to AfDs) because it is particularly unique. This amounts to more than just "controversy." The argument that the school would be better suited in an article about NZ education is invalid as this school uses an atypical educational structure and would not work in an article about NZ education, especially given that it is not merely "educational structure" that makes it notable. Contrary to what has been claimed, the article does not fail GNG and BEFORE as the article could be significantly improved through basic editing. This is evidenced by other NZ secondary school articles that have all easily found the necessary coverage and sources when someone has gotten around to editing them, as will happen with this article in time.

This AfD has the same nominator and same disproven nominating argument as the previous AfD. The circumstances of the article have not changed either. Therefore, the outcome should be the same. In the previous AfD, a user said that "To bring this here after a previous overwhelming 'keep' discussion is purely and simply disruptive, time wasting, and pointy, as the nominator well knows." Such a comment is increasingly relevant in this third nonsensical AfD.

MangoMan11 (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we had a bevy of New Zealanders to participate, but we don't. @MangoMan11:, could you point out what sources could lead non-Kiwi's to agree? Jacona (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article, along with This book, along with numerous news articles at https://www.stuff.co.nz/ and www.nzherald.co.nz, are significant coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time, in addition to being the first (and only one of 6) jr high's in the entire country. Meets the general notability guideline with the sources in the article. Jacona (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two passing mentions and one link to a random website (not to sources) is not really convincing. The Banner talk 22:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• there’s enough. Add in the dozens of brief mentions at the New Zealand herald and another news website, and I’m completely satisfied.Jacona (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions will held no sway. The Banner talk 23:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, here's the guideline WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. -- That's what I'm talking about, if you google this subject you will see that plenty of the results are SIGCOV, in addition to the already-sufficient-for-GNG sources in the article. Jacona (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions will held no sway. The Banner talk 23:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly point out the policy that says "Passing mentions will held no sway."? Jacona (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacona That is an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comment. It was just pointed out to you. WP:SIGCOV requires that sources address the topic "directly and in detail". Passing mentions lack detail and therefore are excluded as evidence of notability under out guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm feeling that way about The Banner's statement. If you read the above, I'm the one that quoted SIGCOV. The Banner appears to refute SIGCOV with the statement "Passing mentions will held no sway". Since they appears to be arguing against SIGCOV, I'm really not certain what they mean. Jacona (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point is that the reasoning behind that is exact what you quoted earlier: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Mentioning a name is not in detail. And it start to look that you misinterpreted SIGCOV by claiming that every minor detail is relevant towards notability. It is not. The Banner talk 08:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete refer to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as there is nothing notable at this stage about this school. Just because it exists does not meet the notability guidlines. The discussion of the "controversial" topic of Junior High Schools in NZ education would sit better under Education in New Zealand. NealeWellington (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A quick google search yields a multitude of sources that include things such as notable alumni and unique things about the school beyond just the Junior High "controversy" (this is without needing to delve into extensive in-depth research). I think it's safe to say that the topic itself is notable and has significant coverage, the issue is that the article itself is a stub so far (for which AfD is not a solution). MangoMan11 (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• From that quick search Here are three. These are not "passing mentions", and could be used to expand article content. [1] [2][3]
  • Looks like three one-off events. Nothing in-depth about the school. And how many school will teach their pupils about government and politics? 100%? The Banner talk 14:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "And how many school will teach their pupils about government and politics? 100%?"

  Actually no, this isn't the case in New Zealand (I've heard that it also isn't the case in many other countries as well). Civics education is at the discretion of individual schools and many don't teach it or teach it adequately. The schools that do teach it can choose how they teach it as well (I personally think this needs to change but that's irrelevant to this), so this source is actually very useful for showing the individual curriculum of the school. While the source could be easily misinterpreted as a "one-off event" (since elections are events) the source explained that the mock election was part of a unit that they run on civics education and detailed other aspects of the unit (the title even explains it: "Albany Students' mock election all part of the learning process"). So if you read into it a bit more it becomes clear that, while on the surface level it may seem to be an event, the source is not about an event and is actually about the school's civics curriculum. This is why I think that "Generally, users external to New Zealand - who are overwhelmingly featured on this AfD - are not well placed to comment on the notability of New Zealand subjects" as, like in this instance, many assume that things in NZ are exactly the same as they are in other countries. MangoMan11 (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. None of the sources address the school "directly and in detail" as required by our guidelines. Local news coverage of events held or sponsored by the school are not SIGCOV per the RFC ruling at SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:NOTNEWS. In order to establish SIGCOV of the school we would need to see sources where the school is the primary subject (not a school event or the school's students, or a school response to something like COVID19; but a detailed account of the school and its history).4meter4 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SIGCOV explains that "directly and in detail" means "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." You're right that the school is not the primary subject for many of these subjects (but also is for several of them), however it doesn't need to be the "main topic" as explained in SIGCOV as the sources still contain more than a trivial mention; so they do actually pass SIGCOV. MangoMan11 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 28 June 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.