Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Carrillo 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 Merge to Santa Rosa City Schools. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 08:04Z

[edit] Maria Carrillo High School

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

Fails WP:SCHOOL. The article does not make any mention as to any awards the school has received; all it says is that the school maintains a high level of academic standards. This is not enough to pass WP:SCHOOL. Diez2 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Agree with nom, not even a list of famous alumni is provided, which usually makes the cut for schools. Roadmr (t|c) 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent - high schools clear the notability bar. If this particular high school hasn't produced any notable alumni in its 11 years of operation, it inevitably will do so soon enough. --Hyperbole 20:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The school isn't even eleven years old yet. It hasn't earned any significant awards or notable alumni yet because of this. --Nat 01:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• No verifiable information is present in the article, other than that the school exists and is in Santa Rosa. If anyone can find reliable sources for the other random information in the article, particularly the "Maria Carrillo has a reputation for high academic standards within Sonoma county" bit, I'd say it's fine, but right now the actual verifiable content of the article amounts to basically a sentence. --Slowking Man 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — Changed my mind. I'm borderline on this one due to the limited amount of substantive, verifiable information. Perhaps a summary could be merged into the town page? — RJH (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  That sounds good to me. Perhaps delete the article and recreate it as a redirect to Santa Rosa, California Santa Rosa City Schools? --Slowking Man 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Inadequate references, and notability not demonstrated. You've had since July of last year to say something interesting about this school, but it still looks just like all its peers. Sorry, but this should go. WMMartin 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The lack of notability of this school is well demonstrated by the only two events described in the article: two trivial school pranks.DGG 07:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• One other thing about this school, is that all of the other schools in the district have equal or less information. Why pick on this one school? If you delete one, delete them all. Santa_Rosa_City_Schools --Nat 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  That's true, and I had taken a look at the other school articles before. If this gets closed as delete/merge, as it looks like it will right now, I'll go ahead and merge the other school articles into Santa Rosa City Schools. --Slowking Man 00:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete. Pranks and clubs are not what makes a school notable. Vegaswikian 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge is a decent solution, in the absence of any sources with which to write an article. Shimeru 09:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. To begin with, I want to remind everyone that there is not yet a policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least, I believe, a list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources and any additional sources that come light. As always, we should not be excluded articles on wikipedia on just notability alone; self-promotion and commercial characteristics of articles with illegitimate sources should be the targets of deletion. This article appears to have some possibility for growth, and I believe that if until some templates for clean up and additional sources are added, and then if no progress is made on the article within a few months, then the article can be properly assessed. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:15, 12 February 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.