TTTech ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

I feel this page was deleted too quickly. I saw it was discussed for deletion so I started editing and verifying a lot of the content. I corrected a lot of the things that were mentioned in the discussion for deletion, spending hours to add multiple sources. I came back a few days later to continue working on the article and it was gone. I would have been happy to discuss how to further improve the page - maybe a point or two could have been omitted and the language could have been improved too. But I don't understand how this could have been accused of being purely promotional when the page also included controversies and such. I have looked up the page because I'm a student at the Technical University of Vienna and I took several lectures with professor Poledna and professor Kopetz who are both founding members of this company and acknowledged in their field. I found the page to be informative. In addition, I have just seen last week that TTTech has won an export price by the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber so it is indeed a well known corporation here. I know you're not supposed to compare but I can't help thinking TTTech has partnerships with Audi, Boeing, Airbus etc. and if I look up those company pages they are no different from this one so in that context the deletion really seemed too fast to me. I have since continued working on the article - it is now in my sandbox. I have talked to the admin who closed the article and was redirected here. I hope for this deletion to be reconsidered so the article can be re-written and further improved. Sathescha ( talk) 16:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, as closing sysop, I can tell you I saw a clear consensus to delete. There were three and a half delete opinions, and only one keep. I also note that both the appellant here, as well as Austria2010 appear to be single-purpose accounts connected to the company. -- Y  not? 18:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for your input. However, how many articles I’ve worked on is no indication about the notability of the page in question or the fact that a lot of what was criticized in the discussion has been changed shortly before deletion so I fail to see the relevance of this point. (I used to be on Wikipedia and Wikiquote a little some years ago but had forgotten my user details so when I wanted to work on this article I created a new account. I admittedly have only contributed to a small number of pages alltogether as I don't have that much time but afaik there isn't a minimum number of contributions one has to make.) As I said before I hope to get a chance to further improve the page as I had put in hours of work before it got deleted and I'm very open to all suggestions and working together with anyone interested. -- Sathescha ( talk) 23:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (to redirect, keeping history). I don't see a consensus to delete, but a rough consensus of a discussion heading to a redirect with possibility of some merging. The nomination focussed on a notability guideline. Notability guidelines do not mandate deletion if there is a merge target. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I would vote on keeping the article and further improving it. The whole argument was based on notability - this is not some small joint that has just been around for a few months. The NASA mentions them on their website, Audi holds 25 % of the shares. The article the page now gets redirected to isn't informative about the company itself. They work with a variety of technologies so the redirect doesn't make sense (if you are interested in time-triggered technology on a whole but also avioncs systems such as AFDX you would know the vast difference). -- Austria2010 ( talk) 11:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• (Commenting late; there are good reasons why comments out of time, such as this one, are not always be given weight. But since this is still unclosed, I'm guessing our regular DRV closers are looking for more input before they feel a decision can be reached.)----On reading the discussion, I see the votes preceded by a bold "delete" all, without exception, give reasons explaining why there should be no separate article with this title. None of them give any reason to preclude a redirect. When the redirect argument is presented, even the nominator agrees that redirection is appropriate. So in this case I completely agree with SmokeyJoe.— S Marshall T/ C 10:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Port Moresby International High School ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This Afd was closed by someone who is not an admin( just stating fact, not taking issue with that person). There are concerns with the keep rationales which ultimately has lead school article to be kept. None of the rationales are showing any sort of notability at all, the comments are all aimed at "We keep all high school articles" Which I believe is in contravention of WP:ORG which states "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists". The other thing being linked and conveniently ignored where it suits is Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) which further states "However, this is not a loophole in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at Wikipedia: Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifically" Either way I don't believe that policy is being followed or are there valid rationales on why this school is notable. I have not raised this issue on the talkpage because as stated the closer is not an administrator. I have not notified anyone of the discussion because I largely think that what they will say is irrelevant to a reviewing admin. If anyone feels differently please notify whoever you think should be. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 09:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure - This seems almost like an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP due to the lack of notification and the fact that the filer is also the one behind the original AfD... PantherLeapord ( talk) 09:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

  I have also notified the !voters of the original AfD. PantherLeapord ( talk) 09:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

If you consider taking advantage of the appeal system is forum shopping I am guilty as charged. This is the standard place to raise the issue if you disagree with the outcome of any deletion as seen here WP:DPAFD. I have based this on the relevant policies governing the notability guidelines, which is clear in this case and even policies that are noted above and linked to in the AFD, if you think that the other editors should be here by all means let them know but I am sure that any admin reviewing won't fail to see the answer to each keep rationale is the same and it has been WP:ITEXISTS and WP:VAGUEWAVE votes, none actually address the notability of the insitution itself. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 09:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

This is not forum shoping; this forum is exactly where User:Hell in a Bucket should be posting his request for a review of the deletion of this article. Earlier today he mistakenly (but presumably in good faith) raised the issue at WP:ANI and was correctly redirected here. — Psychonaut ( talk) 13:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. Here we go again. User:Hell in a Bucket takes issue with the fact that there is clearly a consensus that high school articles should be kept. He quotes "rules" to "prove" his point. But he ignores the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, that we should ignore all "rules" if we consider it benefits Wikipedia, and, most importantly, that the fact that it is virtually unheard of for a high school article to be deleted at AfD proves a consensus of those who contribute to AfDs. It couldn't be any clearer if it tried, but still we get disgruntled editors trying to claim that they are right and the majority who oppose them are wrong. Wikipedia works by consensus. We have a clear consensus. No, of course it's not a consensus of all editors. Nothing in Wikipedia can ever be a consensus of more than a tiny fraction of editors. If we demanded more we would never, ever have a consensus, even on the most important issues. This is patently obvious, but is ignored by the high-school-article-haters in an attempt to prove the rightness of their cause. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I believe that the WP:GNG or WP:ORG is guided by consensus as well? Even the linking to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES it shows it must pass WP:ORG. If we want the blanket endorsement that is being urged and constantly shouted about maybe there should be a RFC. I am only trying to follow the guidelines and spirit of what is the consensus on notability. BTW unless you mean you've been in these DRV's before ok, but I have never once been here in four years editing, you may have me confused with another editor. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 10:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
    • It's called an exception to the rule. We can have them you know. Particularly since there are actually no rules on Wikipedia. Consensuses don't have to written down in triplicate and filed with the appropriate authorities. They just have to be clearly in existence. I wasn't specifically referring to you, but this comes up again and again and every time it's defeated. For those of us who contribute to these AfDs a lot it does get somewhat tedious and it does seem to get on the WP:POINTY side. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Regarding your comment that called me a "high-school-article-hater" please remember to WP:AGF my first article written was Central High School (Pueblo, Colorado). I wrote it partly because I went there, and also because it had notability as having historical architecture and several highly notable graduates. If I see that type of notability I am happy to see those here but a one line article just saying it exists doesn't do it for me. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 10:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
        • I didn't specifically call you a "high-school-article-hater". I'm just tired of dealing with the small group of editors who seem to be on a crusade to get high school articles deleted (especially if they're schools outside the USA). If that doesn't apply to you then I apologise. Incidentally, I've always been mystified as to why people think having notable graduates makes a school notable. It doesn't. It's usually completely random where somebody goes to school. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
          • • Lol I actually agree with you. This was my first article cut me some slack jack, I thought it mattered, in the end it's actually trivia. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 10:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
            • Necrothesp, I would like to point out that it is not "usually completely random where somebody goes to school". Where you (or your parents) live generally has a lot to do with it.-- Auric talk 00:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
              • Which is missing the point entirely! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 20:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)*Endorse closure . The precedents documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS are those on which articles on mainstream high schools are almost always closed at AfD. That page may be an essay, but it expresses no opinion - simply summarises AfD outcomes. Hell In A Bucket is fully aware that numerous RfC over the years to either overturn this precedent or to turn it into an official guideline have always ended without consensus either way. The precedent is upheld by hundreds, possibly thousands of AfD closures, and the fact that educational institutions are exempt from CSD-A7 also gives a kick start to notability for schools. Whezther the closer is an admin or not, this closure falls within WP:CLOSEAFD, and Hell In A Bucket does not appear to have attempted a discussion with User:Czar, the closer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• • • To address this, you mean the part that says [ [1]] here that says an Administrator will review it and is specifically exempted from non admin closure because it is not "absent any contentious debate among participants." This was a debated issue with my delete rationale and attempts at a discussion and a merge rationale that weren't addressed. Why discuss it with Czar when he had no authority anyways and then an admin still would've to review it? Do you think it would've ended differently. I will be away for a couple hours so I will not be able to reply and I'm not sure I really need to at this point add anything more because everyone is saying the same things we said at AFD. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 11:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm not quite sure I understand what your mission is here. Is it to discredit the closer who perfectly assessed the consensus (and which was based on a standard accepted practice for schools), or is to overturn a well established precedent? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I have no ultimate mission here, I just think this article doesn't belong here. If it was a well written piece I'd be more inclined to agree with you that IAR would be a fitting exemption. The problem I am having is that this article doesn't even try to claim any notability. All it is that there is an organization that exists by this name and happens to be a high school. If you read my userpage I state I think we should be selective if our efforts here are to gain or keep respectability. Having an article that a business exists makes this place tantamount to a Yellow Pages. I understand and respect schools are not applicable to A7 csd and I realize why but if the community really wanted to keep all high school articles why is there the caveat, that they must pass ORG in Schooloutcomes? I am a deletionist by nature but at most this article should be redirected to the overall district. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The nominator says "I don't believe that policy is being followed". But the main point of the notability guidelines is that they are guidelines, not policy requirements. It is our policy that they are simply guidelines. We are invited to examine an article in the light of the guidelines, possibly see whether or not the article meets them, and then decide whether we would like the article to be kept or deleted. Even if I think an article exceeds the guidelines I can still think it should be deleted on grounds of the topic having insufficient notability. If I find an article falling below the guidance criteria I may still think it should be kept. That is not ignoring our policies, it abiding by them. Thincat ( talk) 11:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Hell in a Bucket certainly has valid concerns about the state of the Article - it is at present a stub, and not much of a stub. The "Keep" is certainly generous, but generosity in keeping High School Article is the norm - the standard of major direct influence on world affairs is generally accepted as not applicable. In this case, the Article should certainly be kept, as it can BECOME a good well-referenced article, given the school's history. It isn't yet, and might have to be considered for deletion again if no-one takes up the job of expanding, but for now, it is a fairly new article, and needs time. Tagging for lack of refs would be the more appropriate action, or asking for help at Articles for Expansion, or Guild of Copy Editors, if Hell in a Bucket wishes to pursue their concerns. Don't see anything but good faith on both sides - Article just needs work.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 13:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Common outcome, reflects consensus. I'm bothered that the editor has focused a lot of energy talking about how the closer wasn't an admin at the WP:ANI discussion. There is no function difference in an admin close or non-admin close in these kinds of cases. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Based on what I've stated above this would not be a non admin closure apropriate thing because there were dissenting opinions. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Based on your insistence in mentioning that it was a non-admin close, one might conclude that you are trying to poison the well. You keep mentioning something that doesn't matter, so it must matter to you. If it didn't matter, there would be ZERO reason to even mention it once. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
      • That sounds like a desperate attempt to overlook the concerns I've brought up. Maybe you can elaborate on what you think would've been different if I had talked to Czar? I can tell you after I raised the same concerns there I still would've been here. If people took the time to actually rationally think about the points raised here, everyone wants to ignore that if this was the precedent that all high schools are kept, why does it say it must still pass WP:ORG? Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 00:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep per longstanding precedent to keep high schools where existence can be proved by a reliable source. That might not sound very Wikipedian, as the only other things that have presumed inherent notability are heads of state. But trying to AFD a high school is generally pointless anyway, since they always have coverage in reliable sources and their impact on the area they serve is without question, and thus they're virtually always good article subjects. Simply put, Wikipedia works by consensus, and on this particular topic consensus is crystal clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment from closer. I have little to add that hasn't been said, but wanted to acknowledge that I've seen the thread. I believe I've acted well within policy and closed on the discussion's clear consensus. I would have been happy to discuss this with the nom at his request. czar  ·  · 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sure you would've been very happy to talk about it, however it still would have been a waste of time. As I mention in the first two sentences of the request here I have no issue with you at all, I just believe that the closure was counting votes and not actually observing the guidelines set down for deletion. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 00:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

It is inconsistent to say you had nothing to discuss with me but then publicly question my closure judgment (vote counting?) in light of a crystal clear consensus. There have been other (better?) opportunities for such a proxy war, ^{[Port Moresby 1]} one I find uninteresting, so I'd appreciate if you ceased to implicate me and traffic in my reputation in fighting it. czar  ·  · 03:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

If you can't read the first sentence of this posting and understand it I'm sorry, I lead with that I do not have a problem with you and I would have been here anyways so that's where I went. You can choose to take that as a slight or you could say thanks for not wasting my time. I have stated before as you evidenced and I reiterate that as I find articles like this and others, I will continue to nominate as I see appropriate based on the consensus and guidelines we have laid out for notability. I'm sure that will make some grind their teeth but apparently the precedent you (as a group) still keep touting specifically says that it is subject to WP:ORG if there's enough to make a RFC change to blanket exempt all high schools from deletion then I have no problems with that, however as it is there is a reason it states what it does and it's being willfully ignored. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 04:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I just can't get past the apparent SNOW keep overview. See my advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - Editing consensus has been, for a very long time, that being a high school = notability. That's not WP:ITEXISTS or a WP:VAGUEWAVE, that is WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - I am a strong supporter of the longstanding consensus that secondary schools of confirmed existence are kept on a per se basis. It seems to be a well-established community consensus. There probably should be an RFC to ratify this into the Special Notability Guidelines at some point, but that's another matter. Carrite ( talk) 17:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply