Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chisholm Trail Junior High

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 of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 18:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chisholm Trail Junior High

Non-notable middle school. We don't need an article on every middle school in America. Cool3 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable corporation. — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep, schools notable by consensus. Monicasdude 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. If kept, do not expand with transient and generic information for the sake of expansion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the small amount that could be said about the school would be better placed on a page about its district. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to school district article, as per consensus on WP:SCH. High schools are notable by consensus. Middle schools are to be merged to the district, unless they have significant and verifiable information that makes them unique. And don't say all middle schools are unique, because by encyclopaedic standards, they are not. Proto||type 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unless it is a hoax. Scranchuse 21:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, or possibly merge per WP:SCH. Kappa 03:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If not deleted, do not keep but Merge per Proto. Vegaswikian 07:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Like with any school, there is a lot more that could be said about Chisholm Trail. I also agree "we don't need an article on every middle school in America". We need an article on every middle school in the world. Let's make wikipedia the most comprehesive site that has ever existed since the dawn of mankind. -- JJay 09:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this article meets the core standards of NPOV and verifiability. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:38, 7 March 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.