Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clover Park High School

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so the article will be kept as a default. Postdlf 01:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clover Park High School

Non-notable high school. Delete. Firebug 18:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, POV article. --InShaneee 18:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, coverage of troubled schools is exactly what wikipedia should be providing. Kappa 18:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? Gamaliel 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Problems like gangs, sexual harrasment and gun violence in schools are part of the "sum of all human knowledge" we are trying to accumulate. Kappa 20:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • And that calls for substantial articles about gangs, sexual harrasment and gun violence, not articles on random schools which merely mention such things in passing. Gamaliel 22:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The school article ties these problems to a geographic location where they are extant. Klonimus 00:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Suppose it was a substantial school article which described its problems and attempted solutions in depth? Kappa 23:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Are you asking if I would vote keep? If the article was truly substantial, with verifiable information and sources cited, then that would certainly be a strong factor in its favor. Gamaliel 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that troubled schools are somehow more encyclopedic than non-troubled schools? RickK 20:09, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, covering them is more important. Kappa 20:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikpedia is not here for the purposes of advocacy. Your comment is tantamount to saying that we should be covering bands with no record contracts more than bands with record contracts. RickK 21:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd think of it as covering villages with serious problems more than average villages. Kappa 22:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the Lakewood, Washington article. After all, how many children at the school don't live there? Average Earthman 19:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:BEEFSTEW of 2 (A,B). Not to mention the improper trolling for votes. —Korath (Talk) 19:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to expand. High schools should not have to prove notability. It seems somewhat elitist when the richy-rich Stuyvesant High Schools out there get to have articles, but your regular middle-class high school isn't considered good enough. It is a public institution and more notable than the British train stations. (And I didn't get this by reading GRider's page, I monitor the VfDs; but is someone's opinion who gets it from there less valid than ours? How about the person who hears about it from WP:W?) --BaronLarf 20:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, someone confuses Wikipedia with the Special Olympics, where every article is special and it's "elitist" to draw distinctions about worthiness and quality. Standards?!? Who needs them? --Calton | Talk 01:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If we set standards only by school quality, we end up with the top 2% and the occasional scene of a shooting incident. How does that represent the real range of schools to the user? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not supposed to. Representing the typical is the job of general articles. An article on American High Schools could contain such information, or an article on American eduction could. Furthermore, unremarkable schools could be mentioned on a town page or even perhaps a school district page. It is just plain silly to claim that not having an article on every single school in the world would mean that no information on typical schools could exist on wikipedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to highlight and synthesize. Indrian 19:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • An article on American High Schools would be too generic unless it included specific examples. I'm not saying we need articles on every single school in the world, but we do need scope for representative examples of all types. Kappa 06:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Would you extend this to other types of articles? How about articles on representative examples of people? I could write an article about my plumber. Gamaliel 06:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately your plumber is unlikely to cross even a minimal bar of verifiability and significance to his/her local community or plumbing in general. Kappa 06:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • In my opinion, a better parallel is the inclusion of every city, town, village and Census Designated Place on Wikipedia. There are far more of those than there are high schools, plus there is no debate about whether Bee Cave, Texas is notable. This, despite the fact that the city of Bee Cave has only 656 people, less than most high schools.--BaronLarf 18:07, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
            • If people are so obsessed with notability then just merge the damn high school page into the local town page. Towns are unquestionably notable, and high schools are unquestionably significant in terms of their local town. However, this page has so much information that it deserves it's own page as a "subpage" of the city of Lakewood. So after you merge it, you are gonna have to unmerge it. :-) In other words, just keep the page. Incidentally, I think I've just proven the inherent significance of any school page that is larger then a stub. - Pioneer-12 19:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete High schools are not notable by simply being. Is Spring Valley High School notable? How can it be since it just opened. I have no problem with any school being included if it stands on its own as deserving an entry. This is not a class or rich vs. poor issue. If there is a question, tag it cleanup-importance and if nothing happens delete it. Vegaswikian 21:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing special.Saopaulo1 21:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, this please it seems special to me Yuckfoo 21:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Invalid nomination. --Gene_poole 23:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait, let me guess: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, ergo it is encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Good to see the message is getting through.--Gene_poole 03:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Calton, you are starting to understand inclusionism, Klonimus 00:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • • Yeah, either the message that you're as thick as two short planks or that you have no shame about employing rhetorical fallacies. For details, see Beg the question.
        • And speaking of two, where's your pal Centauri? Shouldn't he be here fighting the good fight? --Calton | Talk 11:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • By your own reasoning, your own vote would be invalid since it doesn't have a valid reasoning behind it. Yes, I realize the paradox there :)
• Delete In accordance with Wikipedia's notability policies and Jimbo's wishes. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you think Jimbo wishes for good articles on "non-notable" schools to be deleted? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable high school. Jonathunder 01:18, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• Keep in accordance with Jimbo's wishes. [1] This school does appear to be notable for reasons of campus violence, although notability is not a requirement for inclusion. —RaD Man (talk) 01:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • My interpretation is that Jimbo is somewhat non-committal about stubs Kappa 11:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jimbo was clearly talking about allowing exceptions, not about something becoming the rule, and the continual brandishing of his quote as if it meant the latter is straight-up intellectual dishonesty. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ...or maybe not. "Non-notability" s not a valid deletion criteria. --Gene_poole 03:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If he was talking about making exceptions, what would he make exceptions for? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • • Speak of the Devil and who should appear? Hey, Perry Mason, you seem to have mistaken the VfD process for a court of law. --Calton | Talk 11:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It absolutely is, and a number of policies deal precisely with notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, so now we are debating the interpretation of the Words of our Creator. What's next, the CathoPedia declares war on the RevoPedia? Radiant_* 10:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• This is a stub about a perfectly average school with discipline problems. I wish we could say that were unusual. It's not. Delete. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What if it were more than a stub? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable topic. El_C 07:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Lakewood, Washington and delete - Skysmith 08:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per low BEEFSTEW score. Radiant_* 10:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: User:GRider's edits make a new WP:BEEFSTEW score of 4 (A, B, E, G (though barely - [2])). --bainer 13:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable discipline problems at a notable school. Klonimus 13:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That article could describe any high school in the United States. That students and parents have expressed concerns is subjective on their part and unquantifiable on ours. Mackensen (talk) 23:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: What is not subjective but is notable is the fact that the school received a federal grant allowing "students who have been victimized or participated in violence to receive therapy" from counselors. What is quantifiable is that students and parents have these very real concerns and that the school district has addressed them. As a parent myself, I sincerely value such information and sleep better knowing that Wikipedia hosts it. —RaD Man (talk) 07:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing notable about this, which is yet another school. The JPS 00:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are important. Oliver Chettle 02:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this school article deserves improvement.  ALKIVAR™ 09:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:57, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another generic school. Unfortunately, being plagued by gang violence does not make a school notable as this is a common problem. Indrian 19:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Houshuang
• Keep. GRider's improvements have made this well and truly worthy of retention. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are worthy of note, and this is a well-written article. If I were looking up information on schools and discovered that Wikipedia contained an entry for a high school I attended some years ago, I would be extremely impressed with the depth of information and level of detail in Wikipedia. I would shout from the rooftops "WIKIPEDIA IS THE GREATEST ENCYCLOPEDIA EVER!" We are better off having this article. - Pioneer-12 12:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable CDC (talk) 23:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Master Thief Garrett 01:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Pioneer12 and Capitalistroadster.--Jacobw 18:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is subjective. Wikipedia is not improved by the removal of school articles. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 20:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a very nice article. Better than 90% of the stuff I get when I hit the random page button.--Heathcliff 02:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Topic is notable: data interesting (because having more than 50% minorities means well, the majority isn't really present, is it?) How do you expect it to grow out of non notability if you keep pressing to delete it? It has the capacity to grow out of non notability. Plus, I disagree with the notion that it is not distinguished from the countless other schools around the world, because you realise, that in China, the student mindset would be different, there is no reduced lunch, the syllabus would be different, or in Singapore, having much more different sets of characteristics than US schools, or even within the US itself. If I made an article about some relatively unknown species just discovered in the Amazon Rainforest, much of detail yet to be discovered, its report printed in a small section of some scientific journal among thousands of others, in the same family as another species, are you what, going to delete it for having non notable information? Even before the article has a chance to evolve?...

Yet according to the Tree of Life project, Wikipedia doesn't mind documenting each and every species. Because notability can be established, can become notable research information, when networked, overviewed in conjunction with other articles, if you let it live. Its genome would be different, there would be lessons to learn, no matter how small, and then its important for say, genetic statistics, research, confirmation, checking for codon exceptions, etc. In the same way, schools are an important part of demographics, no matter how non notable it is now. Would you object to Wikipedia storing the genome (taken from DNA databases) of every species if it had people bothered? Isn't the record of such evolution of the individual nucleotides and its analyses valuable, even though it seems small? Should we omit a point from a circle in our mathematical drawings because its only one point out of an infinite number? Yet we don't. Why then object to having this article exist for demographical purposes? The NPOV problems can be fixed. It has a chance to be proliferate into something of note. Why do have articles every day of the year, even into the future, or documentation of every possible enzyme there is in life? Isn't it possible that a string of non notable things can be used in analysis into something of note? And isn't it true that the patterns can be so diverse they need their own individual articles? Isn't it possible, that gasp, something event might happen that links two relatively minor things into a big one? And if the article existed beforehand, it would have been easier to correlate when something did happen. One article about a seemingly insignificant thing, when linked and correlated with other articles to show similar concepts, or trends, patterns, for cross reference and such, then extending this depth to possibly many others because of the links? -- Natalinasmpf 02:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amen. This article enhances the information value of every page that links to it, and every page that will link to it in the future. I think that: if a topic is a common link between two or more notable topics, then that topic becomes notable as a result of it's association with those topics, and that a page should probably exist for that mutually shared topic. Ergo, if two significant people go to a school, then that school becomes notable as a common link, a shared bond. - Pioneer-12 08:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So uh, conclusion? Anybody? -- Natalinasmpf 13:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable school with notable alumni. Tallyman 15:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.