Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedar High School

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cedar High School

This article does not assert any notability about its subject. It does not place this school, one of thousands like it, in any historical context. It does not provide any information available elsewhere, nor does it relate it to any broader educational or cultural context. The information it does include is either of such a generic and common nature as to be self-evident (nearly all public high schools have sports programs, for example), or is specific and unverified. There are no sources pertaining to the article; the only link given is to the school's main page.

I came across this article on random page patrol and placed a WP:PROD tag on it, citing these concerns. RJHall (talk) removed it, with the following summary: Disagree, plus H.S. deletes are controversial. It is not clear to me how he thought this article did assert notability, and I would invite such explanations here. As to the controversial nature of school AfDs, that remains a mystery to me. Articles about schools are not in themselves a special type of article, nor do they enjoy special status. They do not enjoy policy-level protection–even articles on Prime Ministers and Presidents don't have such protection in itself. Rather, the nature of the subject guarantees an easy assertion of notability and the ready availability of reliable sources.

I would argue that this article does not enjoy that status; does not possess reliable sources; does not assert and does not enjoy notability. Thanks for your time. Mackensen (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I support delete as there is nothing notable in the article, but there have been arguments for eons about notability of High Schools. Many think just because a high school exists it is notable. I disagree. There may be some re-thinking going on. Someone mentioned a High School wikiproject but I don't know the details. -Nv8200p talk 20:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ColinFine 20:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All high schools are notable, and this one has about 1000 pupils. This article should not have been prodded, and it should not have been brought to AfD. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you care to explain why? Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete The school has one notable alumnus. If a few more can be found that might constitute an assertion of notability. However, a google search on the matter was unsuccesful. JoshuaZ 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the reasons explained at User:Silensor/Schools. Schools, like train stations and small towns, have their place in Wikipedia. Silensor 22:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Begging your pardon, but your reasons don't address all the issues raised in the nom. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also see the rebuttal of Silensor's essay- User:JoshuaZ/Schools. JoshuaZ 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We can agree to disagree on that, but I feel that this essay does address your issues. Meanwhile, I'm in the process of finding additional sources for this article. Thank you, Silensor 23:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, adequately defines an enclopedic topic, and has plenty of potential for expansion. A small but useful step towards comprehensive coverage of high schools in the United States. Kappa 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep worthwhile article on a signficant topic. Also, there is a clear precedent on keeping all verifiable real schools, particularly high schools. Nominator starts with the false presumption the school has to rise above others, and ignores the possiblity that schools, are normally worthy of conclusion like various other topics (such as municipalities, members of state legislators, licensed full power radio stations, etc...) where we keep all items of a class, provided basic policy, particularly, verifiability, is satisfied. Lets use our time and resources on improving articles, and not dead-end debates. Incidently, I applaud JoshuaZ writing his essay. His comments about being ok with the the deletion (or merging) of many smaller towns and villages shows he has thought through things, and has expressed a greater level of consistancy in arguements than most who want deletion of the typical school. Its pretty much impossible to argue that keeping a high school with 900 kids should be deleted, but supporting the retention of a typical township of a dozen people. Of course, we won't being undoing precedent for either places or schools. --Rob 01:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

School articles do get deleted from time to time, if no importance can be asserted. There's a group of people who always vote to keep, but that doesn't mean school articles are automatically kept. --W.marsh 01:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep - There is a difference between "this is a stub" and "this is not notable". Existing precedent is that high schools are by nature notable. If this is a stub then it should be fixed and tagged as such in the meantime, but that's no grounds for deletion. Georgewilliamherbert 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete some schools are notable; this one is not. — Dunc|☺ 08:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete I do not favour a default keep on secondary schools, and this one is not an exception. Does having one notable alumnus make it pass WP:SCHOOL or WP:ORG? The guidelines do in fact say "alumni" (ie plural). Ohconfucius 08:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. — This school meets my personal criteria for notability. High school deletions are almost inevitably controversial when they come up for AfD votes and so are outside the scope of PROD in my opinion. No that does not mean they should be immune from deletion; it is just a statement that a PROD is for non-controversial deletions. Yes this article could be better, but it has a stub tag and is a decent enough start. — RJH (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 16:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic, meets common law standards for inclusion. Only argument preseted for deletion is it's a stub which is an awful criterion for deletion. WilyD 18:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Did you actually read the nomination? You might then notice that the nom argues that the article "does not assert and does not enjoy notability" JoshuaZ 18:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I did read the nom - but I also read the article - which allowed me to discount verifiably false statements. Again, claims that are false upon their face aren't arguments - arguments are a position built upon facts - facts necessarily being true - which both of the statements you point to are not. Thus it remains that the only argument presented is It's a stub which remains an awful criterion for deletion when making an encyclopaedia in this format. WilyD 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Apparently multiple users think the argument has some validity. It is therefore hard to see how you could reasonably dismiss this as not even a real argument. Why don't you please explain how the article so totally demolishes the notability matter? JoshuaZ 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a verifiable article for a high school and meets all standards for retention of a school article. Notable alumni don't make a school notable and are an unrealistic standard for determining notability. Is the school's measure of success how many of its graduates have made it into Wikipedia or that it has been entrusted with the education of a community's high school students for over 65 years? Alansohn 20:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per schoolwatch flood above --ForbiddenWord 18:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Again Forbidden, all you are saying here is "Keep because lots of other people have already shouted keep" JoshuaZ 00:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Large secondary school, therefore notable. -- Necrothesp 00:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason to delete a high school stub, unless it is an attack page (and Prod is completely inappropriate). That is not the case here. Instead, this is sourced with a notable alum. I call that a good start and applaud the editors for their contribution. --JJay 01:11, 21 September 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.