Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cullybackey High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cullybackey High School

School with no assertion of notability. In fact, the article's original author claimed the opposite: "It doesn't have any famous pupils that i know of." Noe notable, not encyclopedic, lacking sources. If this were a company, it would have been speedied long ago. Prod contested on the grounds that it's a school, which is rather silly, but here we are. Shimeru 08:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. As per Shimeru - jlao 04 08:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, secondary schools are usually kept on Wikipedia. I see no reason why we shouldn't keep this one aswell. It is notable too the local community. bbx 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What makes it notable? Can you include that in the article and cite an appropriate source? Shimeru 09:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Have you done any research yourself, to check that the WP:SCHOOL criteria are not satisfied? Lacking assertions of notability is only a deletion criterion for certain specific classes of articles, which does not include schools. I suggest that you expend the effort to do the research. Look to see whether multiple non-trivial published works on this school exists. If your research turns them up, you can help to improve the article in collaboration with your fellow editors by citing them in the article as references or further reading. If your research does not turn any up, then you should think about coming to AFD. A valid deletion rationale that something isn't notable points to what notability criteria are being employed, and how you have determined that the subject fails those criteria. "The article didn't tell me" is only satisfactory for speedy deletions of people, groups, companies, and web content. It is not satisfactory for any other classes of articles. For other classes of articles it is incumbent upon you to do the research. Uncle G 12:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Please bear in mind that WP:SCHOOLS is a failed proposal at this point. JoshuaZ 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
          • That is a false idea to bear in mind. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Wrong. Notability is only a speedy deletion criteria for those classes of articles. That doesn't mean that it doesn't apply whatsoever to schools. I see no reason to hold schools to a lower standard than companies or individual people. If a school is historically important or otherwise noteworthy, of course include it. If it's been the subject of published studies, sure. If it's had famous alumni... eh, that's kind of borderline, but I'd let it pass. But an article that says nothing more than that it exists? "It's real" is not accepted as an argument for keeping any other class of article, and if that's all it takes to pass WP:SCHOOLS, then WP:SCHOOLS is flawed. Furthermore, burden of proof is on those making the claims of notability; however, I did perform some research before tagging it, and I find your assumption that I did not bordering on a personal attack. If you have nothing to say in support of the article, I'll thank you not to speculate on my presumed methods. Shimeru 19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
          • False. The speedy deletion criterion is, as clearly stated (I did link directly to the criterion for you to read it.), lack of an assertion of notability. That is what your nomination rationale is. Your rationale is not that the school is non-notable. It is, to quote words 3 to 6 of your rationale, that the article contains "no assertion of notability". Once again: That is not a deletion criterion for any but certain, specific, classes of article, which do not include schools.

            I did perform some research before tagging it — You make no mention of this in your rationale. All that your rationale tells us is that you don't like the article, you tried to have it deleted twice, and when those attempts failed you tried a third time. Indeed, you have still not told us what research you did, even though you claim to have actually done as I suggested.

            I find your assumption that I did not bordering on a personal attack. — The assumption is derived from what you wrote. The fault is your own; you cannot pass it to others, under the pretense that a suggestion that you do the research is some kind of personal attack (which it clearly isn't) or otherwise. If you don't like people inferring from what you wrote that you did no research, then write down what research you did. It is noticable that you still haven't told us what research you did, even though you vehemently assert that you did some. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

            • That is not what my nomination rationale is. Read my entire nomination rather than just the first sentence. It's the first two words of the third sentence: "Not notable." (Ignoring the typo I made earlier, at least.) As to your other points, you should assume that I have done research, rather than that I haven't -- part of assuming good faith, is it not? Since you'd like to know, I performed a variety of searches of both web space and news/article archives (not limited to, but including, Google) and turned up nothing significant. And you are still saying nothing about the article and much about what you assume I have or have not done. This is ad hominem argument. Kindly desist. Shimeru 08:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Reply to both above re WP:SCHOOLS - can we pick one or the other; does this article pass WP:SCHOOLS (read it first before deciding) or is WP:SCHOOLS irrelevant (in which case why mention it). Even if WP:SCHOOLS was torpedoed by the same folks who bring us these AfDs and vote to delete, it is by far the most meaningful option we have. Are either of you offering a standard by which to evaluate these articles as an alternative to WP:SCHOOLS? Alansohn 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I would say not. It does not meet criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, or 7, as it stands. There is a suggestion that it meets 5 ("Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff."), but no evidence that the award is in fact significant -- and even if it is, it is an award, not awards as the criteria suggests, so it doesn't meet 5 in my mind either way. Nevertheless, supporters of WP:SCHOOLS seem to believe that it does meet those criteria (and did before the award was added), though again, no evidence has been offered. I don't think this is the right place to propose a standard, but I would certainly offer that schools should be judged by criteria similar to those of other articles -- companies, individuals, government entities. Shimeru 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
              • They are. WP:SCHOOL was derived from WP:CORP. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Yes, but it is way broader (easier achievable), and that's probably one reason why it hasn't reached consensus. I personally dislike the 50 year criterium (most schools in Belgium and probably throughout Europe would qualify by this standard), the notability by association (which I dislike in many occasions: if some band barely passes WP:MUSIC, then automatically all other bands where one of the memebrs participated in becomes notable, and all the schools of all the members of the band as well, even if there is no relation at all between the school and the minor success of the band. I think the sport criterium is too broad as well, but that one can be tweaked, and has at least (in contrast to the notable alumni one) a direct connection to the importance of the school (certainly with team sports). Alansohn, you asked for the alternatives for WP:SCHOOL here as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville High School), let's not have that discussion on every school AfD again please. There are enough policies applicable by which we can judge if a school is verifiably notable beyond the trivial directory level, and many schools are not. Fram 08:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Its pure existence makes it notable. I believe that almost all schools are notable and should be included on Wikipedia. If you want to know why, look at Silensor's school page that I agree with 100%. bbx 18:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that the notability of schools in the six counties of Northern Ireland is a little different than elsewhere, inasmuch as education at primary and secondary level in NI has historically been provided on a sectarian basis. That being so, I would welcome articles on all schools in NI, with the proviso that such articles should aim to include approximate breakdowns of religious background on a percentage basis among pupils, teaching staff, support staff and and catchment area. With that in mind, keep. BTLizard 13:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable, as per endless previous arguments. -- Necrothesp 13:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you focussed upon sources for the subject at hand, as WP:SCHOOL encourages one to do, rather than repeating "stuck record" arguments that don't even mention the subject at hand, this discussion would be more productive. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, the "stuck record" is the tedious continuation of nominations for deletion of secondary school articles which are almost certainly going to be kept, thus wasting all our time. I'm sure I don't have to repeat that WP:SCHOOL is not a policy. -- Necrothesp 11:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, the "endless previous arguments" have not established that all secondary schools are notable, they have shown that there is currently absolutely no consensus to either keep or delete them, and that most closing admins prefer to look at the raw numbers and not at the policy arguments used (and I know that WP:SCHOOL is not policy and will probably in its current form never be a guideline either). The AfD's are not wasting our time, they are a continuing effort to reach a consensus, and highlight the problems many users have with many or even most current school articles: they lack all noteworthy content, and often are uncapable of adding such since no verifiable noteworthy content beyond the directory level is available. This is a serious problem which gets largely ignored by all those wanting to keep all school articles, as exemplified by your and most other "keep" suggestions. Fram 12:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
          • In actual fact, many AfDs are closed as no consensus tending to keep and are therefore kept. The fact that the deletionists cannot accept that is the problem. I frankly find it fascinating (and very telling) that they seem to think that, despite obviously being in a minority, their opinions count for more than those of us who want to keep the articles (i.e. they are somehow "obviously right" and we are "obviously wrong"). The argument that I and many other "keep" voters put forward is that secondary schools are major factors in the lives of a large percentage of people on this planet, ergo they are notable. This doesn't need to be repeated every time, since it holds for every secondary school. Neither does it mean that we should keep articles on every house, fire station, telephone box, etc (as some have helpfully suggested we "must" mean), since although people may be intimately acquainted with these things, they are not individually central to the lives of hundreds of people every year. Your argument that many schools "often are uncapable of adding such since no verifiable noteworthy content beyond the directory level is available" is, to be honest, a little ridiculous. How many schools have absolutely nothing written about them? Verifiable information does not have to be provided via Google (as so many seem to believe - it really is a lame argument that lack of Google hits = no notability, yet still it's endlessly trotted out) or even via the internet. Verifiable information can come from any published source. The fact that some of these school articles do not include such references at the moment does not mean that they cannot or that someone will not add them in the future; this is an illogical argument. If the school exists then it is entitled to an article and being a stub has never been a criterion for deletion. The fact that many of us believe that secondary schools are notable because they are secondary schools and that we have said why numerous times is why I am getting rather tired of continually repeating the same arguments. Because let's face it, the deletionists are repeating the same arguments (not notable, not verifiable), with which we have already said we disagree. The fact we are not likely to reach consensus because of this fundamental disagreement is why I feel it becomes a waste of time to propose these articles for deletion. -- Necrothesp 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
            • "Despite obviously being in a minority"? Let's see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitstone school: 14 keeps, 17 deletes, no consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niles McKinley High School: 16 keeps, 11 deletes, no consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balmoral middle school: 14 deletes, 1 keep, deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturgis Charter Public School: 15 keeps, 7 deletes, kept... The problem to me seems to be that many people don't argue about a specific article, but "vote" according to their fixed positions on any school debate. But even so, it is clear that even for secondary schools, there is no clear majority and minority in recent debates. And again, it is up to those wanting to keep an article to provide sources: only the opinion that there must be sources is not enough (and they have to be non-trivial, otherwise you can keep all companies by the same standard, as every local company gets an article in the local newspaper once in a while). Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion, but I have that strawman from keepers quite a few times (yes, it's not only the deleters than can get repetitive, you know). Being an article about a subject for which there is no verifiable info beyond the trivial, the directory level is a perfect reason for deletion, and it is up to those wanting to keep it to provide sources to the contrary. Rememeber, there is nothing prohibiting a recreation of an article once such info appears. But to keep articles solely on the unsupported opinion that such info must exist is not a valid argument. Fram 16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
              • A couple of secondary school articles appear on AfD every day. The vast majority are kept. That suggests you're in a minority to me. But the simple fact is that we're not going to agree and no amount of accusing the other side of producing strawmen and trotting out different interpretations of the same policy is going to change that. Hence the pointlessness of debating secondary school articles. I am by no means an inclusionist. There is much rubbish here that needs deleting. But in the case of secondary schools I can see a clear case for keeping all of them (and as far as I'm concerned, if the existence of a school is verifiable, which it almost always is, then a stub saying that it exists is perfectly acceptable) and I'm afraid you will not change my mind by endlessly producing the same arguments, any more than I'm sure I will change yours. -- Necrothesp 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Many of these articles have a majority of individuals favoring deletion. Keep in mind that deletion does not occur when one has 1 over a majority but generally a consensus (hence there being closed as "no consensus"). Also, as I have pointed out before when one looks at users who rarely comment on school articles they are more likely to argue for deletion than keeping. JoshuaZ 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • And more do not. I'm aware of the rules for deletion. Your last point, even if true, is frankly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment The argument that I and many other "keep" voters put forward is that secondary schools are major factors in the lives of a large percentage of people on this planet, ergo they are notable. Why? Companies and organizations are major factors in the lives of a large percentage of people on this planet (all but the unemployed), yet we do not automatically keep them. Religion is a major factor in the lives of a large percentage of people on this planet, yet we do not keep every church, mosque, synagogue, or shrine. Nearly every person in the developed world is born in a hospital, yet we do not have articles on all hospitals. Most people can drive, yet not every DMV office (or its equivalent) warrants an article. What is it that should exclude schools from the guidelines that we apply to these other categories of articles? Shimeru 18:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Hundreds of people attend almost every secondary school for a large part of the day, five days a week. Most schools have many thousands of former pupils who spent an equal amount of time there. There is no comparison with individual places of worship, hospitals, or DMV (or its equiovalent) offices, and I don't see how you could possibly claim there is without tongue firmly in cheek. As for companies, companies that employ the number of people that attend or have attended the average school are likely to have an article anyway. -- Necrothesp 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Attendance is not sufficient. Many restaurants may serve thousands of people every day -- and those people, at least, are not compelled by law to patronize those restaurants. If the best that can be said of a school is "X people spend time there," that school is neither noteworthy nor encyclopedic, as it is not in any way distinguishable from the school in the next district whose primary defining feature is that X people attend. A school, like a person or company or website, should be exceptional in order to warrant its own article. Shimeru 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Oh come on, how many restaurants serve thousands of people every day and how many people spend seven hours a day in a single restaurant for five days a week, 40 weeks a year, for five to seven years? How many restaurants are the centres of their patrons' lives? How many restaurants influence their patrons for the rest of their lives? Stop clutching at straws. -- Necrothesp 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • More restaurants than you think, I'd wager. For that matter, more schools than you think serve fewer than "thousands," including this one, which claims 500 pupils. Shimeru 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • This is hardly "clutching at straws" if you prefer we could replace "school" with "hospital" and certainly there are companies that are of the same size (and thus have people there 8 hours a day) with many employees which fail WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 02:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • Don't mix quantity with importance please. It is not because we have to spend many hours at school that we consider it the "centre of our life". And anyway, school as an institution is very important, but individual schools are not, as the difference between them is minimal and most schools have no distinguishing, remarkable, noteworthy elements, which would make them worthy of an article. Having an article about most schools adds nothing to our knowledge of the world, and it doesn't even add something to our knowledge of some particular town beyond the fact that such school exists, which couldn't be said in one line in the article about the town. If all that can be said about such important, life-defining places is (as in most school articles) the name of the current principal, the location, the number of pupils, the number of years, the colours of the uniform, the motto, and the nickname of the sports team, then no one is any the wiser as to how and why lives are defined there. If an article can not explain why it is so important to so many people (in a WP:V way), and if an article likewise cannot make clear why a particular institution is remarkable amongst the whole class of them, then your general principles about schools are very nice but are of null value for the acceptance of any particular school article. Fram 06:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • Indeed. Claims that schools are notable based on the amount of time people spend there and how significant that is alleged to be in their lives are grossly overstated. Sure, it would be ludicrous to remove an actual school, but this is a discussion for removal of an encyclopedia article about a school. A defense of the significance of the school itself here is irrelevant. Look at the featured article on the main page -- that is what a notable school looks like: over a century old, with an unusual and exceptional history of academic excellence, which served as a logistics base during the aftermath of the WTC attacks. It may not seem fair or right, but some schools are simply more notable than others, and the vast majority fall into a class which are, for all practical purposes, interchangeable. It does not diminish the significance of the school itself if we don't have an encyclopedia article about it. Wikipedia is not a directory, and it borders on irrational to say that the article under examination here is anything more than a mere directory entry. —ptk✰fgs 07:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • No company that had the same number of current employees and former employees as the average school has current and former pupils is likely to be unworthy of an article. And in any case, employers do not shape their employees' future lives in the way that schools do. Few people even remain working for the same company these days for as long as they remain at the same school. -- Necrothesp 11:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep You write it, they read it! --Mike 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This is not an argument. JoshuaZ 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not asserted. No verifiable sources. AKAF 15:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: as can be seen in many (high) school AfD's, there is no consensus that secondary schools are autmatically notable, even though some of those who want to lep them all like to say so. This article clearly demonstrates why a school does not autoamtically qualify, since it has no sources that pass WP:V, has no claims to notability (except for just existing, which is quite weak), has a meager 95 distinct Google hits, of which this one seems to come closest to establishing notability[1]. The school is apparently 38 years old[2]. Google news gives no results at all[3]. This school is utterly unremarkable, like most schools are. Fram 15:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Above and beyond the inherent claims of notability that all schools have, and the near-complete consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable, this article (as revised based on some of the research done by User:Fram) makes specific and explicit claims of notability and should be retained. The article has verifiable sources, as requested, and the article can only benefit from further expansion. Alansohn 16:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • BT is a corporation interested in maintaining good public relations. So they "recognize" lots of local schools for doing mundane things that local schools do. You can see that about 150 schools were "recognized" in 2005-2006 alone! This is no indication of notability of any of these schools. Significant recognition of the school (or of BT's award) by independent media--not by corporations--is what is needed to show notability of the school (or of BT's award). (In fact, unless there is independent media coverage of the award, it could be argued that mentioning it in a Wikipedia article is spam for BT.) Pan Dan 16:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that "BT is a corporation interested in maintaining good public relations". Any company that was doing this exercise would have no difficulty in awarding some recognition to every single school in their service area. BT doesn't and has not. Despite the 150 schools recognized in 2005-06 alone, there were thousands upon thousands of schools that were not, and will never be. A simple read of WP:RS will demonstrate that your spam claim for this award is entirely false. You can attempt to feebly undermine the claim of notability, but the fact that there is a claim of notability that id fully supported by a verifiable source is undeniable. Alansohn 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
        • There were 750 schools competing, and about one in four won...[4] Not very distinguishing, but this is the kind of thing were personal opinion comes into play (in deciding if this is significant enough as coverage and award). Seeing that the award has received apparently very little to no coverage, it can be argued that it is not very important and does not make this school or any of the many other winners any more notable. Fram 20:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
          • As with all awards, there is a huge amount of self-selection. It certainly makes the school more notable than non-winners. Even if 25% of nominated schools win the award, how is that materially less notable than an Academy Award, in which 20% of nominees receive awards. Can you provide a Wikipedia source for your "not very important" standard, or is this just your own original research? Alansohn 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
            • With no significant independent media coverage, the award is not notable, hence this school's receiving the award is not notable, hence this school's receiving the award in no way justifies a Wikipedia article about the school. Pan Dan 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Take another look at WP:SCHOOLS if you think there is any consensus on notability of schools. Glendoremus 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment First of all my compliments on proposing Merge', rather than the destructive choice of Delete. Take a look at WP:SCHOOLS; it was an excellent attempt at reaching consensus, that was blown out of the water by so many of the same people who try -- unsuccessfully -- to delete high school articles. Take a look at the overwhelming, near-complete majority of attempts to delete high schools via AfD that fail, evidence of a consenus for retention. What standard do you suggest be applied? Alansohn 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Which is it? Are there "so many ... people [who attempt] to delete high schools via AfD," or is there a clear "consensus for retention"? I'd say if there are that many AfDs, unsuccessful or not, that indicates there is no consensus. Shimeru 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • "lack of consenus" is not the same as "consensus for retention". WP:SCHOOL is both a good way to reach consensus and a good way to focus the discussion on the finding, citing, reading, and evaluating of sources. Note that several people here have discussed sources, rather than repeating "stuck record" arguments and parroting dogma. That is a significant improvement over the prior situation. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This school does not appear to be the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial works which would indicate notability. BT's recognition of the school does not show notability unless this recognition was covered by independent media. The inspection report does not show notability, as the reason for its publication has to do with the accountability of schools but nothing to do with anybody taking note (so to speak) of this school. Pan Dan 17:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per comments of Fram and Pan Dan (ooh, that's fun to say "Fram and Pan Dan") JoshuaZ 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Appropriate reference to a school, and a llink to the school's website, can always be put in an article on the town or district. Edison 18:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim of any sort of notability- there is no identity that makes any subject automatically notable; it is context and noteworthiness that imbues notability. This school does not appear to have a claim to either of those two. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep school is notable. see about award. Audiobooks 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No evidence award is itself significant. No outside coverage of award (ie. news media or other reliable secondary sources). Shimeru 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets all content policies. I would suggest a merge, but with the rejection of WP:SCHOOL it may be that such merges are unpopular. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Of parts in WP:SCHOOL merging was one of the less controversial aspects. JoshuaZ 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:SCHOOL has not been rejected, and in fact is now regularly employed in school AFD discussions by various editors. Uncle G 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment This is not a a sign that it has been accepted. Furthermore, the tag was put on and simply reverted. This doesn't alter the basic fact that there is no consensus behind it. JoshuaZ 07:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above. Jcuk 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Given that there were delete opinions above and one keep read simply as "You write it, they read it!" it might help if you explained in more detail which keeps above you were keeping per. JoshuaZ 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:LOCAL into the slightly more notable village of Cullybackey. Glendoremus 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on grounds of previous precedent. Admittedly, a lot of people are not particularly in favor of keeping high schools on principle, but it's been an established precedent for well over a year now, if not longer. Haikupoet 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Many of those highschool discussions ended as no consensus and there have even been a few deletions. There is not any strong precedent. JoshuaZ 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this non-notable school even fails the failed WP:SCHOOL test. Carlossuarez46 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — It meets my personal criteria for High School notability. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Which would be...? Shimeru 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- It seems to me there's been a few times in Wikipedia history where precedent has overridden policy, and not only is this one of them, it's probably one of the most significant. And that was before an extensive discussion on the subject, which IIRC largely came out to the current status quo. The nomination was at best naive in the first place, and might be WP:POINT, depending on the nominator's history on AfD. Haikupoet 20:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply: the consensus you hint at being that there is no consensus? Why was this nomination naive and/or a case of WP:POINT? Isn't it then equally or even more a case of WP:POINT when people create stubby articles about utterly unremarkable schools, when they could add their oneliners perfectly to articles about the community or the school district? (Oh, and when has precedent overridden policy on AfD's?) Seeing that there are quite a few people agreeing with the nominator, I don't think it is a fair tactic to attack the nomination instead of trying to defend the article, perhaps (just a policy suggestion) by looking for some actual WP:V sources for it, which is something most "keep"ers are suspiciously unwilling or unable to do... Fram 21:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, what is clear is that a) most such nominations end in a no consensus, and b) there's a significant enough number of people who believe that secondary schools are inherently notable that there really isn't any point in nominating them to begin with. I do agree that they're schoolcruft, but that's arguing against a well-established precedent. At this point, all that can be said is that the arguments against have been gone over and largely rejected -- there's no point in bringing it up again. (That's why I say the nominator is likely naive -- the discussion was long enough ago (a year or so, IIRC) that we could have quite experienced editors who weren't around for it.) So basically what I'm arguing is that, agree or disagree, high schools do seem to meet the minimum threshhold of notability as defined by the community. It is still a contentious issue, clearly, but arguing strictly from a "common law" standpoint it's a waste of time even nominating a high school. Incidentally, another case of precedent overriding policy is in radio station articles -- despite written criteria to the contrary, it is pretty much consensus at this point that any duly licensed radio station is inherently notable. Haikupoet 01:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete schoolcruft. Next we'll be having articles on individual coloring books. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per KC...although, they did have an Internet Awareness Evening •Jim62sch• 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable school cruft. —ptk✰fgs 21:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per my belief that all secondary level educational institutions and above are notable. The British Telecommunications awards are icing on the cake. Yamaguchi先生 06:08, 1 November 2006
  • Delete NN. Arbusto 09:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ordinary high school, not terribly notable. --Brianyoumans 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a good article!!! Audiobooks 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC) — Audiobooks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment being a "good" article is not a reason to keep and adding exlamation points doesn't make it any more persuasive. JoshuaZ 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Changed your "keep" to a "comment," since you'd already registered a keep above. Please don't register multiple keeps or deletes on an AfD. Shimeru 00:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nomination for deletion is built upon falsehoods. For reasons why this should be retained, see User:Silensor/Schools (see also User:JoshuaZ/Schools if you are so inclined). Comparing this to coloring books is, well, laughable. Silensor 00:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Since you're calling me a liar, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain why. Shimeru 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Let me second Shimeru here. Calling a nomination "built upon falsehoods" without any explanation is not very civil, and needs either a good explanation or a retraction. And do you have anything in particular to say about the discussion of this specific article, instead of general sweeping essays? Fram 06:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • He brought it on himself with his antagonistic behaviour towards those who voted keep.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I have been uncivil to no one. If you consider presenting an argument antagonistic, I am frankly speechless. Shimeru 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I didnt really care one way or the other until I saw how Shimeru was responding towards those who voted keep... but now this is a definate keep if for no other reason than to teach people to stop being WP:DICKs.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
ReplySo you think it is a good idea to reply incivility (if there was any) with incivility, and you think even better to make a WP:POINT vote instead of a contribution to the AfD discussion which discusses the merits and faults of the article and the potential for the subject to have an article complying with policies? And this coming from an administrator? Oh boy... Fram 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Echoing Fram slightly here. Even if Shimeru had been uncivil (which I don't see above, merely forceful arguing) keeping to teach someone a lesson is awful logic. JoshuaZ 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per several of the fine points made above. --Myles Long 00:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete based on the content of the article. If the statement of being formed in the 'nineteenth century' is verified then you can change my vote to 'Speedy Keep'. Vegaswikian 00:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep based on article content alone, go duke this out at WP:SCHOOLS and stop clogging up AFD, please. RFerreira 00:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs better sources, but I'm sure they will develop over time. Otherwise, like all schools, should be kept. --JJay 23:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I was unable to find any other significant sources from googling, so your faith in their extsence is misplaced. If they don't show up, why should the article be kept? JoshuaZ 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Articles need more than one day to develop. They need months or years. The existing reference proves the school's existence, hence this deletion nomination is largely misplaced. Deletion should be the last resort when verifiability can not be established. The ideal should be to build a comprehesive source that provides total coverage of all subjects. As the article expands, additional references will be added. That is my way of viewing things. --JJay 03:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So existence is all that's required to keep anything? Good, I'll go make some stubs about random people who we have 1 setence mentions in the marriage section of the local newspaper. How would that be any different for schools? Existence is not sufficient. JoshuaZ 03:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • When you get done making the stubs, please add your entire previous comment to our Straw man article. It could use some more examples. --JJay 03:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Could you explain how it is a straw man please? If you prefer I can use the almost identical one of having obituaries in the local paper which even has some degree of idependence to it. Please explain how this is different. Simply calling it a Straw man doesn't make it one. JoshuaZ 03:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Read the Straw man article. And please stop with these endless sterile comments. You started by making an apparently sincere question and I responded, sincerely. You then hit me with a bunch of strawmen and some nonsense about equating marriage notices with schools. That ended our discussion. You have your point of view (which is fine by me) and I have mine. Learn to live with that. --JJay 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of encyclopedic notability. No compelling evidence that there is any to be found. If someone finds it later, they can create a new article using the independent reliable sources. (Oh, yeah, and WP:SCHOOLS is not a helpful draft of a proposal on this subject, and should be marked as rejected. If it wasn't rejected, it would matter when people mention it.) GRBerry 03:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Cullybackey_High_School_59f5.html"