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. Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No citations that are currently active. All information is unsourced, failing to meet WP:NOTE and likely WP:INDEPENDENT ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:ORG, which is the applicable criterion. No independent references, and I can't find anything online outside of routine news coverage. The article contains no claim of notability; it just looks to me like a run-of-the-mill high school. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also support a redirect to List of schools in Cheshire West and Chester, just in case someone searched for this school. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails not only WP:GNG, but it also astoundingly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. School has received no major awards or accolades, just a regular, non-notable secondary school.--Kieran207 talk 22:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Available sources sufficient to establish notability, as with any other British secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this article meets WP:ORG? If so, how? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schools do not have to pass WP:ORG if they pass WP:GNG. See WP:ORG#Schools. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article now has a number of independent sources establishing notability. Bleaney (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like the sources are either not independent, local, extremely trivial, or not related to the school. For instance the one about the constable is nto about the school in any way that matters. Also, most of the "sources" are really only one source. Since they are from the same outlet. So, this doesn't meet the relevant notability guidelines IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Perfectly adequate sources. This is yet another attempt to delete a school -because it is normal. All you have to do is to control-F this page for the phrase run-of-the mill, which is allowed, though some non local editors have a POV contrary to policy. This has all been explained in great depth in the Articles for deletion/Putteridge High School. I haven't even started to read the ofsted reports, which as an editor are your first port of call to understand the school and where you need look for additional Secondary RSs. The article is a Start, but could be a lot better if everyone here used their advanced skills on improving it! ClemRutter (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my standards. There's plenty of good sources, and there's even a notable alumnus. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I've been contemplating the notable alumnus thing in relation to another an AfD for another school, that seems to lack reliable sources, but has a ton of notable alumnus. Where do you think the line is and when do you think it would cross over to becoming "notability through inheritance" or whatever. Like I don't think an article for that has multiple national politicians should necessarily be deleted just it lacks adequate, but then there's still things like WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources look fine to me. I have added some referenced info about the school's history, with an interesting quote from Selwyn Lloyd. Given the age of the school and its importance to the community (it's a very large school and has a sixth form), I think it's very likely that other paper sources exist. Tacyarg (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Easily meets WP:GNG now with good regional coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 28 January 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.