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. cleanup during the discussion has rendered the nom and early !votes moot as far as sourcing existing to improve it StarMississippi 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Article reeks of
promotion, boasting about the extracurriculars, academics, & other information you can gather if you pop over to
Bishop Foley's website. What's the difference between reading this over the information you can gather online? Also, the (now deleted) section about the school's namesake,
Bishop John Samuel Foley was paraphrased directly from the school handbook. NamethatisnotinuseNamethatisnotinuse (
talk) 00:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - First, nominator has not pointed to a reason to delete. Second, I find it hard to believe that a 50+ year old school in a major US city isn't notable. If memory serves, there was quite a bit of news generated when they moved. Please note that poor sourcing and especially
SCHOOLCRUFT have been rampant on Detroit area schools for years. An article being poor quality is not a reason to delete.
174.212.227.174 (
talk) 10:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Good point, but I clearly stated a reason. Bishop Foley is notable, but this level of
school cruft is abysmal. Also, I looked, and there are no reputable sources besides that a former teacher & priest sexually abused some students. That on its own is notable, but how does it connect to the big picture?
Keep - Some guy just went in and deleted all the
school cruft. I would close this if I knew how. NamethatisnotinuseNamethatisnotinuse (
talk) 14:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
AusLondonder (
talk) 14:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete firstly, schools aren't inherently notable. Also, this article is promotional garbage, so
better to delete it and start again if decent sourcing can be found by someone without a blatant COI.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 16:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)reply
I have one source of the time:[1] The local community paper has a free online archive through its own system (I used it to do
WOPR (Michigan) this year. I have to say I was a bit underwhelmed with the coverage in Detroit papers.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 04:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)reply
References
^"Catholic School Rises". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. August 8, 1964. p. 4. Retrieved May 12, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. No valid rationale for deletion and clearly meets
WP:GNG. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 17:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly promo and fails
WP:GNG. Insufficient independent sources available to establish notability. The Bannertalk 11:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep.
WP:ORGCRIT is not a necessary condition for a not-for-profit school's notability; per
WP:NSCHOOL, all a not-for-profit school needs to do for notability is to satisfy
WP:GNG. And it does; I'm seeing multiple independent reliable sources that cover the school; newspapers.com returns over 1000 results for "Bishop Foley High School" when searching is restricted to publications from Michigan and about 250 results when searching for "Bishop Foley Catholic High School" when also limiting results to Michigan. I'm seeing a ton of non-trivial coverage of the school by multiple independent reliable sources, including the Detroit Free Press and the Times-Herald of Port Huron, Michigan. The coverage available through newspapers.com includes coverage of high school athletics, coverage of volunteer activities that the school performs, coverage of the school's academics, as well as coverage of scandals involving the school—the corpus of independent coverage by RS is quite thorough. To be frank, I just don't know how this wasn't considered
before this school was nominated for deletion. Issues with promotionalism have been resolved through ordinary editing and the article as it is now is nowhere near
WP:TNT level.
The deletion policy notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Seeing as the article can reasonably be improved through ordinary editing, the deletion policy indicates that this article should be kept. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk) 06:16, 27 May 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.
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. cleanup during the discussion has rendered the nom and early !votes moot as far as sourcing existing to improve it StarMississippi 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Article reeks of
promotion, boasting about the extracurriculars, academics, & other information you can gather if you pop over to
Bishop Foley's website. What's the difference between reading this over the information you can gather online? Also, the (now deleted) section about the school's namesake,
Bishop John Samuel Foley was paraphrased directly from the school handbook. NamethatisnotinuseNamethatisnotinuse (
talk) 00:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - First, nominator has not pointed to a reason to delete. Second, I find it hard to believe that a 50+ year old school in a major US city isn't notable. If memory serves, there was quite a bit of news generated when they moved. Please note that poor sourcing and especially
SCHOOLCRUFT have been rampant on Detroit area schools for years. An article being poor quality is not a reason to delete.
174.212.227.174 (
talk) 10:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Good point, but I clearly stated a reason. Bishop Foley is notable, but this level of
school cruft is abysmal. Also, I looked, and there are no reputable sources besides that a former teacher & priest sexually abused some students. That on its own is notable, but how does it connect to the big picture?
Keep - Some guy just went in and deleted all the
school cruft. I would close this if I knew how. NamethatisnotinuseNamethatisnotinuse (
talk) 14:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
AusLondonder (
talk) 14:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete firstly, schools aren't inherently notable. Also, this article is promotional garbage, so
better to delete it and start again if decent sourcing can be found by someone without a blatant COI.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 16:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)reply
I have one source of the time:[1] The local community paper has a free online archive through its own system (I used it to do
WOPR (Michigan) this year. I have to say I was a bit underwhelmed with the coverage in Detroit papers.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 04:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)reply
References
^"Catholic School Rises". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. August 8, 1964. p. 4. Retrieved May 12, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. No valid rationale for deletion and clearly meets
WP:GNG. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 17:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly promo and fails
WP:GNG. Insufficient independent sources available to establish notability. The Bannertalk 11:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep.
WP:ORGCRIT is not a necessary condition for a not-for-profit school's notability; per
WP:NSCHOOL, all a not-for-profit school needs to do for notability is to satisfy
WP:GNG. And it does; I'm seeing multiple independent reliable sources that cover the school; newspapers.com returns over 1000 results for "Bishop Foley High School" when searching is restricted to publications from Michigan and about 250 results when searching for "Bishop Foley Catholic High School" when also limiting results to Michigan. I'm seeing a ton of non-trivial coverage of the school by multiple independent reliable sources, including the Detroit Free Press and the Times-Herald of Port Huron, Michigan. The coverage available through newspapers.com includes coverage of high school athletics, coverage of volunteer activities that the school performs, coverage of the school's academics, as well as coverage of scandals involving the school—the corpus of independent coverage by RS is quite thorough. To be frank, I just don't know how this wasn't considered
before this school was nominated for deletion. Issues with promotionalism have been resolved through ordinary editing and the article as it is now is nowhere near
WP:TNT level.
The deletion policy notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Seeing as the article can reasonably be improved through ordinary editing, the deletion policy indicates that this article should be kept. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk) 06:16, 27 May 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.