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 per WP:SNOW. (And firefighting, perhaps.) No consensus to delete the page is likely to emerge; there is a strong consensus already that the topic passes our notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) SN54129 19:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) SN54129 19:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combermere School[edit]

Combermere 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)

The article has had a More Citations Needed template on it since at least 2012 and from what I can tell there's nothing in the article or otherwise that help improve things. Since the article is referenced purely to articles about alumni, which don't discuss the school or work for notability anyway, and I couldn't find anything when I did a WP:BEFORE that would help either. So this article clearly fails the notability guidelines and therefore should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Barbados. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is one of the oldest and best known schools in the Caribbean (and in fact, how many schools anywhere have histories back to 1685...?), and there is a whole book on it from the University of the West Indies, so I think notability is there, but I agree that it could be better referenced. I have no special knowledge on this topic but will try to work on the reference angle. SeoR (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the book from University of the West Indies before nominating the article and your massively miss-representation things by saying it's a "whole book about Combermere School." In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school. In the meantime the fact that it's "history" goes back to 1685 doesn't automatically it notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adamant1, and thanks for interacting. You appear to feel quite strongly, about this case, school articles or AFDs, but let's keep it polite - in >15 years, it's my experience that we don't normally ask people to retract their !votes, or refer to others' comments as "nonsense." Now, you say that I "massively miss-representation things" with regard to the book - but that's a straw man argument - I said I'm no expert but that there is a whole book, and that's based on library input. Are you sure you read that specific book? I have asked for copy data, and will dig in but "only 1%" about the school seems unlikely. Decent coverage does not even need a book - a good chapter, and other refs, would suffice. Let's study, and discuss further here. SeoR (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel quite strongly about people not miss-representing sources or the notability guidelines. We all should. In no way was I being impolite by saying it's nonsense that the whole book is about the school. It isn't and your statement that it is was wrong, period. I'm willing to assume good faith that you didn't know that because you haven't read the book, but that's on you for not vetting a source before you made claims about it. In the meantime to me it's rather impolite and a waste of everyone's time to make a claim about something you haven't even read. Outside of that I never said the book has to be 100% about the school, but as far as I can tell it's not even a chapter. Even if there was a chapter discussing the school that doesn't make your statement that the "whole book" is about it any less nonsensical or fact based. Outside of that, I can guarantee that I wouldn't have said anything if you were upfront about the fact that there might be a chapter discussing the school but that you don't really know because you haven't read the source. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be clear, and I do not believe that I misrepresented anything - I noted the existence of a book, which reviews describe as being about the school (not partly, 1% or otherwise). You mentioned that you "read over the book from University of the West Indies" but now you say "as far as I can tell it's not even a chapter" - so have you actually had a chance to read it? It is pretty obscure, and if neither of us has yet explored it in detail, let's wait before we judge? I expect to have the material soon. I am happy to alter my position if it is warranted - I defer to sources (or lack of same). SeoR (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't just note the existence of the book though. You said the whole thing was about the school when you hadn't even read it and the whole book isn't about the school. So 100% you miss-represented things. You still are. Seriously dude, why not just admit you made a claim about the book that wasn't true or that least that you had zero knowledge of instead of back peddling and continuing to obfuscate about it? Also, I've said twice now that I looked through the book. The appropriate time to not judge it would have been before you voted keep based purely on conjecture about what it contained. It's a little ridiculous to say we shouldn't judge it now after the fact and me looking through the book though just because your unwilling to admit your wrong. That's not how this works. People can't just vote keep based on sources they haven't read and then expect everyone else to not judge the sources their vote was based on. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the title. It is reasonable to say it's "about" it. It's far more than 1%, as well.

Except SeoR said the whole book was about it. That aside, I don't think it's reasonable to say, let alone assume, that the book is about the school just because the word "Combermere" is in the title. Just as much as it would be to assume a book like Curious George Goes to School or whatever is in-depth, significant story about the school he goes to. In this case, there's a lot of things that are discussed in the book that relate to Combermere, but we need direct coverage and that doesn't include stories of school alumni, Barbados in general or other things on the periphery of it. You could easily have something like a book about the alumni of a certain school, with the schools name in the title, where the school isn't directly talked about though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now received the book, and I'm struggling to AGF... As the review I read suggested, it *is* a history of the school. It is not "99%" - or anything like that - a discussion of Barbadian society, and discussion of alumni is mostly incidental. The main body chapters are, in sometimes extreme detail, about the school and its principals, and operations, with only the epilogue being slightly different in style. It is, in fact, one of the most detailed histories of a school I have ever seen, far more comprehensive than books I've read about some famous UK and Irish schools. And it was written by two multi-decade-experienced academics, one based in Canada, one in the Caribbean. I am puzzled, and am also struggling to understand how some of the commentary above meets WP:NPA. But we are here to build the encyclopedia, so I will not argue about this, and will, from tomorrow evening, use the book to build up the article further. The editing effort on this page would have enabled whole articles to be built, but so be it. SeoR (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. That sounds nothing like the book I read on Google. Can you give a page number I can read or cite the in-depth coverage that your saying exists so I can look into why there's the difference? Anyway, we would still need another in-depth reference even with the book. I'm fine saying the book count as one reference if it turns out the one on Google that I read is drastically different then what you have access, but obviously there still needs to be more then that. Other then that, I agree that whole articles could have been built in the meantime, which is I asked you to not speculate on the reference before you had actually read it and told Jacona to drop the discussion. It's to bad both of you ignored me and continued it. You could have just as easily voted keep and argued about it once you had access to the book and we could have an informed discussion about it instead of just speculating. Hopefully that's a lesson learned on both your sides. I look forward to figuring out why what I read is different then the book you have though. I'm more then willing to cite a few paragraphs from the book on Google to prove that it isn't significant, in-depth coverage. That or I can give you some page numbers to look at on Google and compare to your book if you want. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd indeed, but look, let's not worry, let's use the source. I think the coverage is exemplified by the chapter structure and titles, so let's start with those (on page vii if you're trying to cross-check via Google). It is important to remember that Google snips can be very selective, and not necessarily in any way representative. So, the book's contents: 1) Combermere's first two hundred years (pp 1-22), 2) The role of George (BR) Burton (pp 23-47), 3) Combermere School, 1926-46 (pp 48-68), 4) The Age of Noott, 1946-1961 (pp 69-102), 5) Consolidation at Waterford, 1961-81 (pp 122-138), 6) Combermere School since 1981 (122-138), followed by epilogue, notes, bibliography, index. And then, to dive in a bit, some interesting sample pages, I'll document re. two chapters - (Chapter 1) pages 1-3 are a detailed account of the Drax Will and the consequent school foundation, pages 4-10 cover the Central School period, while 11-12 look at the Michinson Commission and the linkage between its work and the direction of the school (I would say that 12 is a bit general), 13 touches on the school achieving full second level status, and 14-22 on the beginning of the "Combermere" period, of which p.19 is more than 60% contextual. Chapter 2 elaborates the work of one key principal, and a major expansion of the school, and goes as deep into detail as to name teachers of some subjects, and discuss break-out points on finances; two pages discuss exam results, and four the subject structure and house-prefect system, followed by 1.5 pages (42-43) on school magazine work, and the "old scholars" association. It goes on, but basically it's a really thorough go at a history, albeit with periods when records seem to be "thin." But it goes far beyond one chapter or book passage. I hope this helps. One other thing that may help is to consider the publisher. University presses are usually pretty rigorous, and at the same time most don't have budget to waste, so some weight would go, even before securing a loan copy, to the fact that a third-level institution's house press published on a topic at all. See you on the article improvement stage. SeoR (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article may need to be improved, but the age of the school and the location clearly makes it notable. --Bduke (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke: Interesting take. I wasn't aware that everything in the Caribbean is automatically notable "because the location." Also where do the notability guidelines say that "historical" (whatever that means) subjects are de-facto notable? I doubt that's the case since the last time I checked there isn't articles for every building built before the "modern times." every random archeological site, fossil, pre-modern event, Etc. Etc. don't have their own articles either. That said, you and SeoR both seem to be pretty sure the whole "historical things are automatically notable" thing though. So I'd love to know what information the two of you have access to that I don't. Please enlighten me. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if both of you retracted your votes. Same goes for your nonsense about this being inherently notable because it's located in Barbados/the Caribbean. Either prove there's de-facto notability for everything in Barbados/the Caribbean because of the location or strike your comment about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that everything in the Caribbean is automatically notable. I said that the combination of age and location made it notable. --Bduke (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It's not like "age and location" is anymore grounded in policy then just one or other alone though. Otherwise, show me where the guidelines say "age and location" make something inherently notable. Especially as it relates to subjects that have to do with Barbados/the Caribbean. Just repeating yourself isn't evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keephere's a 12 page article in the Sunday Sun. It contains a good bit of material that could be used to expand the article and replace a primary source or two. Jacona (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks! SeoR (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using google, the search "site:https://www.nationnews.com combermere" brings up 8,310 results. A very large percentage of these amount to WP:SIGCOV. Jacona (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona: You know that "article" is primary and self published right? How exactly is that usable for notability? SeoR, you saying a primary self published source "looks great" is exactly the kind of nonsense I was talking about earlier. Frankly, I'm surprised you can't tell what a primary, self-published source is considering you've been an editor for >15 years. It's pretty basic stuff. Same goes for Jacona. If you going to vote keep at least make sure your not doing it based on a primary reference please. It really shouldn't be that hard. In the meantime no one should take your opinion that a large percentage of the 8,310 results nationnews.com have WP:SIGCOV seriously. As it's obviously nonsense. Just looking at the first 10 results most or all of them are extremely trivial at best and have absolutely nothing to do with the school at worst. I doubt you reviewed anything passed that, let alone a large percentage of the results, and if the top ten are completely irrelevant the rest won't be any better. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's OK with all to cut this comment in here, as it responds to points above, and the discussion goes elsewhere below. The 12-page item is *not* self-published. It was a supplement to a major national newspaper, written by professionals. Now, is it wholly independent? No, I don't think so, at first glance it looked like an "assisted" publication. But even so, so many pages of material will provide plenty of basis for citation and / or further sourcing. I will continue to work to improve the article, and let's see where we get to. SeoR (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a school that's over 300 years old with > 20 alumni that have articles. A quick search at google turns up > 33000 articles. Newspapers.com comes up with many more. A more specific search of Barbadian sources turns up 8000+ articles, many of which are in-depth. WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE clearly indicate that the availability of sources is more important than the sources in the article. If I were to perform WP:BEFORE properly on a subject with tens of thousands of results, I would not be able to reasonably conclude the subject is not notable without spending a significant of time. The premise that a 340 year old school with alumna who were major sports stars, prime ministers, top-level pop stars doesn't have sources sounded suspicious, so I looked for them, and found many in-depth sources. If I performed BEFORE, I would never have nominated this school, but you did nominate, it which makes me wonder: 1.) Have you looked through even the first few pages of sources in the google search "site:https://www.nationnews.com combermere"? Do you not find some of them to be significant in-depth coverage? 2.) Have you done site-specific searches of any other Barbadian/Carribean news outlets? 3.) Have you looked at Newspapers.com? I don't know, but it would seem the good editors at AfD would better spend their time on something else. I've agreed with many of your nominations, but on this one, I just completely don't get it. Jacona (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

again, I can see only what's apparently an abridged version outside the paywall, but you are saying that none of these amount to significant coverage? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Jacona (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your the one claiming that in-depth sources exist. So it's on you to provide them. Why would I look through the 33000 hits on Google to prove your claim that this is notable? That's not how this works. If your unwilling to provide the references then cool, don't participate in the AfD or vote keep based on vacuous claims that your unwilling to provide evidence for then. I could care less. Other people that can make actual, guideline based arguments and know what a primary reference is are bound to come along evemtually. In the meantime you should read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially WP:GOOGLEHITS, because I really don't feel like repeatedly getting in discussions with you about why something that has 33000 Google hits isn't inherently notable. Your just wasting everyone's time, including mine by bringing it up. And no I wouldn't call a two paragraph article about a couple teachers of getting cancer "significant coverage" or even notable. Teachers get cancer. Same goes for the other references. Especially "Problems still at Combermere", which is about St Michael school. It should go without saying that this isn't St Michael school. It's ridiculous your trying to act like it is. Your clearly not doing your due diligence by reviewing references before you provide them. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the conversation. The above unfortunately misrepresents some facts. 1.) "Problems still at Combermere" is indeed about Combermere, which is located at Waterford, St Michael. 2.) Editors do have a duty to look for sources before bringing an article to AfD. If editors don't spend an adequate amount of time doing so, it will waste the time of many other editors. 3.) The news headlines are significant coverage, but more than what's in the url's provided, these appear to be only the trailers to more thorough coverage behind the paywall/in the print edition. Thanks. Jacona (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. My bad on that, but it's still an extremely trivial source that doesn't contain direct, significant coverage of the school though. So it's really a moot point. 2. I said multiple times I looked for sources before I brought the article to AfD. What part of "I couldn't find anything when I did a WP:BEFORE" doesn't make that clear? 3. "news headlines" aren't significant coverage and it's hysterical that you think they are. You clearly either don't understand how AfDs and the notability guidelines work or are intentionally obscuating. At this point my guess is the later.

Also, if the paywall thing was an issue it should have been before you asked my opinion about the references. Not after. I can guarantee that you wouldn't be making an issue out of them being behind a paywall if I agreed that the references were significant coverage. In the meantime there has to be evidence that the articles have significant coverage. We don't just assume there is "because paywall" or whatever. As a side to that, to quote "WP:SIGCOV Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So even if the news stories contained significant coverage there would still have to be a significant reference from another outlet/outlets for this to be notable, which there doesn't seem to be. I'd love to be proved wrong though. In the grand scheme of things WP:THREE in-depth references from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject is an extremely low bar that anything even slightly notable should be able to meet. A low bar that shouldn't be met through obscuation and miss-representing things either btw. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said "I can see only what's apparently an abridged version outside the paywall". I don't know how it could have been more clear. Please do not misrepresent what other editors say. You've done this repeatedly, all the while making this discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Jacona (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly am I miss-representing what you said when you literally said "The news headlines are significant coverage." That's a direct quote. I don't see how pointing out that news headlines aren't significant coverage is turning the discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND either. Maybe you can enlighten me? If anything you are turning into a battle ground by repeatedly making patently false assertions that I didn't do a BEFORE. Even after I said I did multiple times. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Guidelines and policies are thoroughly misrepresented in this AfD. WP:BEFORE, section B.2 directs us to take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. section D part 1 states what those steps are, which includes a google search. It doesn't really matter how many results there are, but this helps us determine whether sources exist. We certainly can and should question the quality of those results. Section C. 1 states us that if the article can be improved through normal editing, it is not a candidate for AfD. Section D.3. and D.4 continue that if adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Jacona (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty hilarious that in one comment you claimed I'm turning this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and then in the next you said I didn't take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources when I've said like 3 times now that I looked for references. I'd love to know how your refusal to accept that I took steps to look for adequate references before I nominated the article isn't treating this like a battleground. Sorry I didn't think the sources you found were up to par dude, that's no reason to try and drag me through the dirt though. Why not just admit you were wrong and move on? Other people who know how to make actual arguments should have a chance to give their opinions. I'd appreciate it if you stopped bludging this with your nonsense and let them. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How are you not mis-representing other editors with the comments you've made, including the quite rude comment where you called me "ridiculous" and said I didn't read the source I provided because it wasn't about Combermere....when in fact it was you who did not read the source carefully enough to understand what it said. That's one of several times in this AfD when you have been both rude and wrong. You've made it clear that you will not be bothered searching for sources, as BEFORE requires, stating the misunderstanding that "that's not how this works." Please stop with the borderline personal attacks and uncivil behavior. You shouldn't accuse other editors of the behavior you yourself are exhibiting. I wish we weren't having this discussion; this school's notability is obvious to me. There is more than sufficient of significant coverage (which you dismiss because you don't like it), the school is one of the oldest in the Western Hemisphere, is covered significantly in the book, hundreds of articles in the Barbadian newspaper ["site:https://www.nationnews.com combermere" search], and other significant coverage. It is the alma mater of Rihanna, and more than 20 other individuals who have articles. It is a strong keep. If you expended 10% of the effort that's been wasted here on improving the encyclopedia, we could have built something in that time.Jacona (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article said "St Michael school was reopened after being closed for several months" and there's a St. Michael School in Bridgetown, Barbados. So I thought that's what the article was talking about. I've been clear about that and in no way was I miss-representing things by reading the article wrong. Outside of that, I didn't say you were "ridiculous." Nice try though. I'm not sure where else I've been wrong either. Although even I have been wrong about other things, it's fine to be wrong. People miss-read things sometimes. Me reading a sentence wrong and then saying that's what happened is no way comparably to how you and SeoR have acted about this or the blatantly false and ridiculous things both of you have said though. Including you saying that headlines are significant coverage or that something with 33000 Google hits is inherently notable. There's really no way to take either of those things as honest mistakes. Especially since you've repeated both even after I provided links to the guidelines saying that the number of Google hits something has doesn't prove it's notable. Same goes for you repeatedly insulting me that I didn't look for references, which at this point just badgering and I'd appreciate it if you didn't badger me. You continuing to harp on me about is all the more ridiculous considering the hemming and hawing your doing about civility. There's absolutely nothing civil in attacking nominators about how they didn't look for references. Especially when they told you multiple times that they did. Seriously dude, practice what you preach and lay off it already. Your the only one wasting effort by going off about clearly false nonsense. Your not obligated to participate in this. Be my guest and go hassle someone else if you think the discussion is such a waste or edit some articles instead of mouthing off. I'm fine with either. Just as long as you leave me and my AfDs the hell alone. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you started this AfD, does not make it your AfD. You have said enough. This is not how AfD's should go. I suggest that you leave it for others to comment and an admin to close it. --Bduke (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. I was going to say "my AfD nomination", which it is, but I assumed (apparently wrongly) that I didn't need to be that pedantic about it and that it should go without that I don't own the AfD. That said, I think if someone repeatedly insults and lies about a nominator that it's within the nominator's right to ask the person to find other things to do. Outside of that, I agree other people should have a chance to comment, which is why I told Jacona to drop it multiple times. Thanks for just repeating what I said though. You repeating me is clearly going to allow other people a chance to give their opinions. Adamant1 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this ancient and nationally-significant school clearly passes WP:GNG, and this AFD nomination appears to be ill-based and possibly evidences US-/European bias given the lack of respect given to coverage by actual newspapers and other sources from Barbados. The nominator may have concerns about high school / secondary school articles in general but some are worthy of inclusion. This school is the subject of a general book (Combermere School and the Barbadian Society), a passage in a specialized book about elite schools in Barbados and the sport of cricket, and multiple newspaper and other articles. As one of a handful of higher schools for the whole colony and later country of Barbados until modern times, it has clearly had a major influence on the island's society, which I think I remember is a notability factor. The nominator seems very committed to deletion instead of improving or fixing any problems, and has accused editors who appear to have no ax to grind of stating "blatantly false and ridiculous things". Not just "ridiculous" but also "false". I edit occasionally, like many readers. And the tone of this nomination defense, with 60% of the page written by the nominator, is one reason why I don't do more. Another is the "deletionist" stance taken by a small but active percentage of editors. Maybe all AfD nominators, like Did You Know... nominators, should have to have a set number of article creations, so they understand about dropping the hard work of others. 91.193.178.64 (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, per sources explained above. --Jayron32 15:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found another book published by the press of the University of the West Indies called Cricket Nurseries of Colonial Barbados: The Elite Schools, 1865-1966 which says that Combermere is "perhaps the first school anywhere to offer secondary education to black children" and also says that the school "provided the Barbadian community with the vast bulk of its business leaders and civil servants " in its first 75 years. The book devotes 40 pages to this school. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 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.