Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourways 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 redirect to Fourways#Schools. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fourways High 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)

Non-notable secondary school. Article supported only by close primary sources, not sufficient to establish notability; fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. Previously deleted (twice?) so a possible salting candidate also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough collectively, in the numerous non I sources , to justify working on this article. The parent article would be Gauteng, and indeed it is in Gauteng. or for that matter in Johannisberg I would look for the offline paper sources. Previously deleted (twice?) suggest to me targetting. Broadbrush statements about GNG without proof are not helpful.ClemRutter (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't who you're accusing of targeting, but I'll just blow past that. As for "GNG without proof" — the proof (or rather lack of it) is in the article; if you disagree, you can vote to keep, as indeed you have done. And since you're claiming that there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then the onus is surely on you to cite them, not on me to disprove your claim. PS: You told me earlier in a different context that a school needs to be 'globally' notable to warrant an article, so I trust whatever sources you'll be bringing forth meet the same standard for this school? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect To Gauteng. As things are the sourcing is pretty mediocre. Therefore, this doesn't pass WP:NORG as a subject and should be deleted. Maybe offline sources about it exist, but with zero evidence (not even the titles of the articles that it's supposed discussed in) anyone could say the same thing to keep an article on just about anything. Plus, knowing they exist without even articles titles, let alone knowing what's in the articles, doesn't help the article or Wikipedia any. Not to mention it's already been deleted twice and I'm sure that both times were for more then "targeting" (whatever that means). So, in light of all that, the article should either be merged or redirected. I'm fine with either. Or really just deleting and salting it so it doesn't needlessly come back into main space when it shouldn't and people don't get needlessly straw manned for nominating it again. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirecting to Gauteng doesn't make much sense. If it's going to be deleted, then delete it. Park3r (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured redirecting is a good middle ground since like Park3r says it's pretty well known in Johannesburg. So it's a likely search term and redirects are cheap Etc. Etc. That said, I'm just as happy with it being deleted outright. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (do not redirect). Redirect to Fourways#Schools It's a fairly well known high school in Johannesburg (but not particularly notable), and there doesn't seem to be a lot in WP:RS about it.Park3r (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not having enough reliable sourcesSonofstar (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fourways#Schools after adding a source the mention of it there in a currently unsourced section. PamD 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as Fourways seems to be part of Johannesburg in the province of Gauteng I don't know why people are suggesting redirecting to Gauteng. PamD 18:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment people are probably just unfamiliar with the geography. I doubt anyone would consider redirecting a non-notable school in say Encino, to the California article. your suggestion for redirecting to Fourways#Schools is a reasonable one. Park3r (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with redirecting it to Fourways#Schools. Park3r is correct that I'm just not familiar with the geography. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree that redir to Fourways#Schools seems best, per PamD. (I'm not withdrawing my nom, though, only agreeing with this suggestion as the best way to handle this.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fourways#Schools, where it is already mentioned. No objection to nuking the content first. Protect if necessary. This iteration of the article is substantially identical to a previously deleted version. Significant independent RS coverage still not found. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 27 March 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.