Talk:Orchard Park High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From VfD:

From same stable as marching bands above. A middle school, I think Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable high school, very like hundreds of other high schools. Geogre 00:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, articles on high schools have long been deemed encyclopedic. - SimonP 02:20, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • By common agreement, but not policy. If others vote to keep, it must be moved to a proper name. There are many other Orchard Parks and many other Orchard Park High Schools. I find nothing in this article to indicate, however, any way in which this is not just a building with some students and teachers. Geogre 03:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • If you'd like to disambiguate the article, feel free. anthony (see warning) 12:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • No, Anthony, I'd like to delete the school. However, those on a campaign to have every high school in the world (not just America, after all) have to face the fact that thousands will overlap in name. If you want to keep it, move it to an appropriate name. Since I want to delete it, I don't really need to do that. Geogre 14:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think we need to disambiguate a title until there is more than one article at the same title. The name it has now is appropriate. anthony (see warning) 19:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable school. --GRutter 08:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. High schools are notable. anthony (see warning) 12:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. We do not need an article about each and every high school in the world. --Elf-friend 13:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)'
• Keep. High Schools often directly affect the lives of tens of thousands of individuals, making them a lot more notable than most articles on Wikipedia. Wodan 17:10, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, if that is all that is needed to justify articles in Wikipedia, let's just delete articles like Minoan civilization and Antarctica (to name just two articles about things that do not affect most people's lives) and make Wikipedia just a school (including primary school and kindergarten) and business directory. Some figures: according to [1] the number of primary schools in China is 491,300, the number of middle-high schools is 66,600 and the number of high schools is 34,300. And don't forget the 1,911 colleges and universities. Or the 71,065 high schools in India [2]. I think Wikipedia will probably become one of the most boring, uninteresting websites in the world then, though. --Elf-friend 18:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • So, if I understand what you've just said correctly, you don't even think that universities should get their own articles? Or is that only universities in China? The argument's spurious anyway, since nobody is likely to write articles about every school in China or any other country. -- Necrothesp 19:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • You know, every university and college in the world probably doesn't need an article, no. Although they tend to be more notable than schools. But quit trying to put words in my mouth - these figures just show how ridicilous it is to include every school, however non-notable, in Wikipedia. And if the trend towards including every educational institution continues, notable or not, we will eventually have thousand of such articles. --Elf-friend 20:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I was not putting words into your mouth. By including the figures for Chinese universities in your attempts to poo-poo the idea of including schools that was exactly what you were implying. So, which universities do require articles? Only the American ones? Only the English-speaking ones? Only the western ones? What's the problem with having thousands of such articles anyway? I'm interested to know how it should be decided which educational institutions are worthy to be included and which aren't. -- Necrothesp 13:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia doesn't become more boring by having more articles. No one reads through the articles one by one, after all. Wikipedia is not paper, stop treating it like a paper encyclopedia. anthony (see warning) 19:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I would just love to know how many readers such an article does get, though. I would expect very few, except possibly for current and past students, who would probably get more useful and current information from the school's web-pages. And what is wrong with trying to keep some semblance of standards on Wikipedia, even if it isn't paper? --Elf-friend 20:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm all for keeping standards. We should have the best information on the school. Better even than the school's webpages, which will likely be POV, and almost certainly aren't free. Besides, your argument that the information can be obtained elsewhere could be used for just about any article. All you've got left is the number of people who are going to be looking for the information. Yes, the number will probably be low. But so what? There's no harm done, so even a small benefit is enough to justify inclusion. anthony (see warning) 22:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Elf-friend, you are the one who is putting words in other people's mouths. I said that being a school which over time has influenced the lives of tens of thousands of individuals is notable and therefore fair to be listed. I did NOT say that it is the only justification to keep an article, such as your example about deleting Antarctica, and your implication of what I said. Your comment that somehow ADDING information and knowledge makes Wikipedia more 'boring' is a sign of a troubled mind to be frank. As somebody else implied, if one was not looking for the information, he would never see it. The page is therefore automatically valid since the only way to get to it is by requesting it! It can therefore not be possible for a user of Wikipedia to somehow be "damaged" by seeing this so-called unworthy page, because the only way to get it is to request it. As far as your question of "how many people" the article would attract, I would guarantee there would be a lot more people looking up their former high school than people looking up Danestal (Random Page I just got) or a third of the pages on Wikipedia. Your comment about people being better off looking up their own school's web site is equally obsurd, since just about every topic on wikipedia has a more authoritative web site elsewhere. One final response - you also related the site to a business, and this is obvious silly since a business would be self-promotion and a school page is instead informative. It is only a snobbish elite mind set like yours which in the end keep information out of wikiepedia. Would you also like to go to your local library and start burning all books not checked out in the last 5 years? Wodan 22:49, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a big enough school. -- Necrothesp 17:41, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • And what exactly is a big enough school? 10 people? 100 people? 1000 people? You going to let in a school with 100 people but delete one with 99? What is the magic number? Is size what matters? We list cities with 10 residents, and archaic places with 0. So why then is size a judgement of worthiness? That is the problem with such a completely non-standardized system. Wodan 22:49, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • No, I agree with including any school that somebody wants to write about, if the article's well-written and informative. I have no intention of calling for the deletion of any school. Did I say anything to make you think I did? I think you'll find I didn't. But some people here do seem to think that size matters so I was attempting to preempt them. -- Necrothesp 13:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I'll vote delete thought it's hopeless. RickK 22:53, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: This argument keeps coming up. Here is a summary, folks. Way back, someone wrote a List of schools and put the helpful "Add your own school here!" It came to VfD. A long, contentious debate followed. The light consensus was, "Well, ok, all high schools, but no middle or elementary schools." No policy, just an agreement.
  • Policy, on the other hand, is exactly the same for high schools as asteroids or pop stars: Is it notable and appropriate encyclopedic content? There is absolutely no commandment in Wikipedia's mission statement to include everything of any type. Some things, in particular, are simply overwhelming. Therefore, my votes on high schools are always, always based on notability. Notability can be debated, of course, but "affecting lives" doesn't do it, for me. 86th and Lexington, the street corner in NYC, has affected more lives than Orchard Park High School ever will. It has to be notable as an example of its type. It must be notable as a high school. Being just like any other high school absolutely voids any keep vote from me. We are not the set of all sets, nor the open door to the bottomless pit. Geogre 23:39, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Notable as an example of its type. That's a good one. I guess we should delete 2/3 of the US Presidents, because they're not the notable ones. Does anyone really care about James Polk? If so they can go to the White House page anyway. anthony (see warning) 23:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • George, 1) how many people look at 86th and Lexington as playing a pivotal role in their life? Your example makes no sense 2) Wiki doesn't list every asteroid? Look at the List_of_asteroids and try adding every asteroid on there that is not "notable." You'll be here all night. 3) A High School just like every other high school? None are identical. Not any more so than most actors are the same... they're in some movies, maybe TV shows, but in the end, they just act, right? Every school has a unique background, and if it can be presented on wiki, why squash it? Notice I'm not making a comment on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Valentine_Rural_High_School since they offer no information about the school and just list it. I'm just flat out surprised by how many people pull out the "not notable" trump card when all you have to do is click "Random Page" link and 9 out of 10 times you'll get a completely obscure page. The reason is even if something is of interest to 0.01% of the population, that is still over a million people! So just because it's not notable to a "select" list of users, doesn't mean we need to censor it. Wodan 00:35, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Article may need a cleaning, but high schools are usually notable community instituations and architecture. Listing here does not meet What to list and not list on VfD standard. Davodd 11:49, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Another plastic article about a high school that tells nothing about why it is notable. It probably isn't. That's the reason to squash it. There are many things of great interest to me locally and in my life that are not encyclopedic. Ordinary local institutions, however individually important to individual people in a community are generally not deserving of articles in any encyclopeida unless there is something notable about them, unless they are likely to be looked up and the information is likely to be what the searchers want to discover. Like asteroids, high schools are quite deserving of being on lists and of mention where appropriate in other ariticles, same as local business, factories, parks, police stations, town halls, community centers and so forth. But I can't see any use anyone could make of an article as bland and empty and generally uninformative about any special features of the school as this is. If it is actually important to a large number of people that this high school be covered in Wikipedia, then let one of these people do a little bit of research and create a real encyclopedia article about the school, not a short unresearched essay about "my school". The editor couldn't even be bothered to include the school's web site. What use to maintain this information here? Wikipedia already has too many uniformative articles that only get in the way of peaple searching for full information on the web, articles that pop up again and again in Wikipedia mirrors and don't improve Wikipedia's image. Anyone who knows enough to be able write a good article on the school would already know this information so it is not even of any particular use in creating a good encyclopedic article to someone capable of doing so. This is empty, unencyclopedic fluff. Jallan 13:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Well said!--GRutter 11:20, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Another prime example of over-granulation of the universe. Denni☯ 23:18, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Bonfires

I changed the date at which the bonfire tradition ended to the 1990's. I am a 2001 grad and remember there having been a bonfire for, at least, my freshman year. Maybe this particular fire was an anomoly (one isolated experiment after the tradition had lain dormant). If anyone has more info on this, please feel free to share... --Cjs56 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)