Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flaget 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flaget High School

Flaget High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Makes no claim of notability; only one source cited BassoProfundo 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC) After discussion, I would like to withdraw my nomination. BassoProfundo 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. It was named after first bishop of Kentucky and used home of notable person. Also, there's a tradition in the Wikipedia of keeping all school articles. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There are numerous other High Schools with articles on Wikipedia and this High School has historic significance that can be verified. --David Andreas 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• 5 (and a half) state championships is a claim of notability, as are two notable alumni (actually 5, but I just listed the ones with articles under "notable alumni" since the other 3 are notable only in the non-Wikipedia sense, as notable local figures). Beyond the championships and alumni, the school is historically significant as a prime example of the dramatic changes that occurred in Louisville during the 1970s. As for sourcing, The one source referenced so far is a 200+ page book on the school's history. The school was also certainly profiled in a 1989 book on Louisville's neighborhoods called "Places in Time". Despite being closed for 30 years, the school gets 76 results in a search of the past 8 years of Courier-Journal stories and 109 results on Google News archives [1], and so many more reliable sources could be cited. This is not a school about which we could never say much more than "it existed and its school colors were..." and I think the article already shows that, despite being AFD'd within 5 minutes of creation. So uh, keep. --W.marsh 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Article as created made claims of notability, and as improved it has ample reliable sources to establish notability by any objective standard. Creating an AfD for an article that makes explicit claims of notability, ten minutes after creation, is evidence of a deep and fundamental flaw in the AfD process. Alansohn 19:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps misunderstanding or ignorance of the process is the flaw, but the process itself seems rather well structured if followed properly. --David Andreas 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no restriction on anyone nominating any article for AfD. An editor with 279 total edits, a whopping 90 in the mainspace, who has never created an article, has little business starting AfDs. It's not that they're being created as a WP:POINT, it's that there's no point for them doing so in the first place. I'd love to see a requirement that an individual must have created one article that would pass AfD before they can start creating AfDs on anyone else's articles. Alansohn 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I secede that those with more experience on Wikipedia may be more readily capable of initiating the process correctly. However, the whole point of Wikipedia is that everyone contributes, not just the editorial elite. What you are desiring, out of legitimate frustration, is a sort of inappropriate stratification that would ultimately inhibit the process of weeding out bad articles. Given the sheer amount of articles on Wikipedia, how would the really bad articles come to light if only a set amount of people who have earned the right were given the ability to nominate? Perhaps better, in my opinion, would be a restriction that forces everyone to read and agree to the guidelines before they can nominate, instead of basing it on editorial merit. Given that I am new to Wikipedia, and don’t yet have a “whopping” amount of edits myself, I feel I have a relatively strong handle on the process simply for the fact that I perused and understand the guidelines. --David Andreas 20:41, 24 June 2007 (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.