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 wasKeep question raised in the nomination were addresses, and concerns of copyright violations rectified. Gnangarra 14:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elanora State High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is either non-noatable person, a non-notable school, a hoax or just silly Grahamec 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep [1]. It's a real high school in Australia with 1200 students. The article is all copyvio, but the subject is notable. - Richfife 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if the article is a copyvio then it needs to be speedily deleted as such. Otto4711 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a copyvio of [2] and so tagged. (Regardless, no notability shown or asserted). EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - copyvio should be removed without prejudice from the article, deletion addresses the subject or purpose of an article, not its content. (I note Richfife has stubbed the article, which I was just about to do - so G12 is now addressed) Orderinchaos 02:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I pulled the copyvio text and stubbed it. - Richfife 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V as it cites no sources and WP:N as it fails to even assert notability. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Butseriouslyfolks, as not meeting WP:V, WP:N, having no links to it of substance, and a very minor stubby example of Schoolcruft. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I'm quite happy to stand up against schoolcruft where it appears, this isn't an example of it - the subject, being a major state high school in the Gold Coast with 27 years of existence, would satisfy WP:N as a subject as the chances of finding reliable information about it, its construction, its notable ex-students and its participation in the community are very high. Orderinchaos 06:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep With the text cleaned up and sources such as this one available to document notability, and several dozen sources found on Google News Archive, there seems to be enough to available to satisfy WP:N. Alansohn 04:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The school that the Google News Archive refers to is in Queensland whereas the one referred to in the article appears to be in NSW. Capitalistroadster 04:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The Gold Coast is in the southern part of Queensland. Elanora is in the northern part of New South Wales. These two areas border each other. The article lists Roslyn Wilson as principal. This link shows Roslyn Wilson as principal of Elanora State High School. The home page of this same Elanora State High School states "Welcome to Elanora State High School in cyberspace. In real space we are situated just three kilometres from the surf on Queensland's famous Gold Coast." It seems rather hard to argue that there are two different Elanora State High Schools being confused with each other. Alansohn 04:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Elanora, New South Wales is in Sydney, 800 kilometres from the Gold Coast. I suspect two schools are mixed up. The original article was about the Gold Coast school. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 04:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elanora, New South Wales does not have a high school, Elanora, Queensland (postcode 4221) on the Gold Coast does not have an article. Suggest the school article be corrected. Google Maps shows Elanora near the border with NSW but distinctly in. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 05:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, NSW does not have "state high schools" - the "State School/State High School" is a peculiarly QLD thing (even though *everyone* I know uses "state schools" to refer to public schools, they're generally Senior High Schools here in WA, and High Schools in SA and NSW. Orderinchaos 06:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. - Created an article for the suburb. Orderinchaos 07:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable school. Lankiveil 09:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as nn school with apparent WP:V issues exacerbating the affair. But even were those to be resolved, the school fails to assert notability. Eusebeus 11:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It's great that you're throwing in some references to Wikipedia policy, but what are the WP:V issues you're referring to? The article is on the short side, so it's hard to see how someone can miss the claim of notability in the second sentence. Is this just a fancy way to say "No schools are notable, regardless of the number or quality of sources?" Alansohn 11:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty much, Alan. I believe you now get to tell me my opinion is invalid. C'mon, go for it... Eusebeus 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ooo!!! Ooo!!! Let me!!! - Richfife 01:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — RJH (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The school has nationwide achievements in both arts and sports, judging by the references in the article. That should be sufficient notability.--Kylohk 19:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - after the usual good work by Alansohn this passes the notability threshold with flying colours. What somewhat depresses me is that nominators do not carry out such research before nominating. TerriersFan 23:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original article when listed was a copyvio without a good version to revert to and could have been speedied. The nominator showed good faith in listing it for AfD. I would suggest that you assume similar good faith as well. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no "notability threshold"--notability is irrelevant. Kurt Weber 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I believe *this* article pertains to a notable subject and have voted Keep accordingly, saying that notability is irrelevant is a debate that should be occurring elsewhere, not on an AfD - consensus holds that notability is important, regardless of its absolute status in policy terms. Otherwise there is a serious risk of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. Orderinchaos 15:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lots of things exist, not all of them are suitable subjects for a Wikipedia article. That is what WP:N is for. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, the mere fact of something's existence is sufficient reason for it to have a Wikipedia article. Notability is not policy; it is irrelevant. People need to forget about it. Kurt Weber 13:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - several positive changes made since afd, looks notable to me. Capmango 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - being a finallist at a competition repeatedly and having students doing very well at another one would seem to make the school notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:N now, likely to be other sources available to allow improvement. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Schools are inherently notable, and this one has other sourced claims as well. --Elonka 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where does it say that schools are inherently notable? I agree this one should be kept, but schools, like everything else should meet WP:N -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 02:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Matt I'm generally opposed to the notion to notability by class - i.e. that anything is inherently or non-inherently notable. A large state high school in a metropolitan area with considerable catchment is *far more likely* to be notable and reliably and independently sourceable than a primary school in a remote country town. However in some cases a large state high school may not be notable, and in some cases that primary school might just be notable for individual circumstances or reasons. Orderinchaos 15:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee Elonka, strange from an editor that wanted to delete every WP:MALL off the project.Garrie 05:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notable with references, yada yada--nice to see afd editors do the work necessary to clean-up an article rather than trash it. In re the general notability of schools--yes...schools are generally inherently notable institutions. Schools get significant coverage in local news when students win various competitions or the school does well in some aspect, and schools generally eventually get at least a couple notable alumni--the longer the school is around, the more alumni they rack up. Schools that do poorly and have various problems get press coverage for those reasons. This is different from malls. There will be coverage if there's controversy, or something particular notable about the mall, but other than that, most press is promotional press. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:59, June 13 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, now that it has improved.--Grahamec 03:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is not great, but I'll accept that the awards make it notable enough for a separate article. If not, merging to the location Elanora would be an option. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep. The article satisfies Wikipedia policy ... it contains valid references that establish it as being notable. In fact, this is one of the better high school articles, and there are hundreds. Sure, it could benefit from some improvement (what article wouldn't) and I'm sure it will be improved over time. Let's keep it. Truthanado 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I'm not sure I agree that this is one of the better articles (!), it's got nothing contestable and the school is clearly notable, and reliable sources for some things have been found, while others undoubtedly will be. Zivko85 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the comments above, school is notable with multiple non-trivial sources to show for it. RFerreira 06:31, 10 June 2007 (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.