Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collier 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 Delete. Argument for deletion is much stronger. You need to consider notability is not inherent. Yanksox 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collier High School

Collier High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No sign of notability -- i.e. it doesn't look like there are (any) non-trivial outside sources about this school that we can use to write a verifiable article. A Lexis-Nexis search shows no non-trivial coverage even at the local level. 143 unique ghits for "collier high school" wickatunk -wikipedia, so unlikely this school has any non-trivial outside coverage. Reply to de-prod comment "interesting and unusual for being run by a non-profit corporation rather than by the state or religious institution; mergable/redirectable to parent organization" -- it's not for us Wikipedians to judge what's notable by virtue of being "interesting" or "unusual" -- if publishers outside of the school agree that the school is unusual and therefore decide to publish things featuring the school, then we've got something to build a Wikipedia article on. Otherwise, not. Pan Dan 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC

• Delete No assertions of notability. Heck, the article basically just says that the school exists. TJ Spyke 02:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All high schools are notable. Considering that this one is unique (operated by a non-profit), I'd imagine the chance of finding non-trivial coverage is more likely than usual. --- RockMFR 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, all schools are NOT notable. There is no policy, guideline, or anything like that on Wikipedia that says that. So saying that "all high schools are notable" is NOT a valid argument, and is the same as saying that all people are notable or that all companies are notabile. I really hate people who use this BS argument. TJ Spyke 05:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, until we can agree on WP:SCHOOLS, and until this precedent stops being set every day on AfD, I'll continue to believe all high schools are notable. --- RockMFR 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. We just deleted a couple of non-notable high schools. Schools are no more inherently notable than libraries, hospitals, or churches. I've been here a while, and as far as I know, only municipalities, provinces or states, and countries can claim inherent notability. Denni ^talk 19:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not accurate. At this point in practice municipalities, provinces and states of notable countries get their own articles. However, not all countries are notable. JoshuaZ 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I just posted a question about this on the village pump policy section under the heading "notability of subjects" (I apologize for my ignorance at how to link directly to it.) Please take a look at my comment and leave a response if you'd like--Dmz5 06:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete It is unfortunate that some peple think all high schools are notable, but I doubt they represent the WP consensus. It's a pity that we have to say this one at a time for every high school. DGG 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability of subjects --- RockMFR 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The school is apparently for "students with difficulty adapting to public schools." I am not clear which categories of students are served by the school. The implication is that school systems that can't handle a student (for whatever reason) pay to send the student to this school. In any event, it is not an average school. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Such a criterion would include all private schools, where many students attend because of some incompatibility with the public school system. That private schools by and large are only notable because of their minority representation in the schooling system is not a sound reason to include them here. Denni ^talk 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article is not supported by any independent sources (let alone non-trivial independent sources), and I, like Pan Dan, find none. It is a directory entry and does not claim notability. (For that matter, the article about its parent organization also has no independent sources and no claim of notability.) Fails both WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:SCHOOLS. No opposition to a merge/redirect of what little information exists to the appropriate school district or locality article. Shimeru 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Another school article which utterly fails to establish notability, and which, like 80% of school stubs, is unlikely to get better in the future. Denni ^talk 19:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. Until definitive guidelines exist(WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:SCHOOLS are only proposals), there is no basis for what most of the deletionists are saying. Highfructosecornsyrup 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Until specific guidelines are approved, schools are subject to policy/guidelines like WP:NOTABLE. So yes, us who vote delete do have basis for doing so. TJ Spyke 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is absolutely no content, yet alone anything to verify. I think the debate of notability is entertaining since there isn't much to say about the school as demonstrated by the lack of content.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alan.ca (talk • contribs).

• • Well, the debate over notability has to do with the article's potential to grow, not with the article as currently written. Pan Dan 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're going to go on the potential to grow, you might as well delete this poor little thing right now. As per my above comments, the likelihood of this receiving significant assistance from other editors is in the neighborhood of one in five. Denni ^talk 02:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect what little useful information that exists to Collier Services (which needs some attention of its own). There is no evidence at this point that there is sufficient information to expand the article that will satisfy WP:SCHOOL. On the other hand, it seems unjustified (if not unethical) to delete and article when there is a perfectly suitable target for a merge/redirect. A merge/redirect will retain all article history and allow for expansion of a full article in teh future as addition information becomes available. Alansohn 23:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect Per Alan. JoshuaZ 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet our notability guidelines. We are writing an encyclopedia of general knowledge, and I don't see how this fits into that. --Cyde Weys 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Wickatunk article, since it is a valid high school. — RJH (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability. I would have no objection to a merge/redirect to either the Collier article or the town article. -- Kicking222 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep please historically notable and verifiable too no problem with merging though Yuckfoo 04:54, 7 December 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.