Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maryville High School

Just a random public high school and Wikipedia is not a place of random info. Absolutely non-notable. We can't have articles for every high school in the country, simply unencyclopedic. The Way 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral but it is linked to another AfD (Spoofhound) --Steve 05:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, seems to just meet WP:SCHOOL (>50 years, highest-level athletics until this year). --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article lists notable alumni. It is linked from a list of high schools in Missouri. It is integrated into the history of Northwest Missouri State University. I didn't create the article (or the Spoofhound article). I just tried to bring it up the wiki ladder (and unfortunately got the Spoofhound noticed). Comments on afd on Spoofhound is urging it be redirected to the school. I copied the spoofhound write up and pasted it in since the Spoofhound is probably not going to survive the afd debate. Yea, the article needs more work but it's not a reason to delete it.Americasroof 06:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Virtually every high school in the country has notable alumni; notable alumni may help give a University extra reason to have an article but certainly not a high school. It's history is no more notable than thousands of other high schools in the United States. We can't have articles for every high school in the US (which in turn would force us to accept articles for high schools worldwide), that would be ridiculous and, again, this high school is no more notable than thousands of others. --The Way 07:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Like it or not, it does meet the WP:SCHOOL criteria for a keep. I understand your issues with high school articles and most high school articles I've seen don't meet the WP:SCHOOL criteria. But I just ignore them and don't throw down the afd hammer on them.Americasroof 07:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Like it or not, WHO CARES IF IT MEETS THE WP:SCHOOL CRITERIA? Those criteria are 1) PROPOSED, and 2) TERRIBLE. -- Kicking222 13:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: As usual with high schools, the article is misnamed, and, as usual, it does not provide us a history that indicates that the school is the subject of discussion outside of its local area and alumni circles. It is an institution doing its regular job, and any institution doing its regular job that isn't discussed for some other reason is below the threshhold of encyclopedic content. Geogre 14:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: No opinion on deletion, but if kept it should be disambiguated from Maryville High School (Tennessee). Gazpacho 15:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • And the Marysville/Maryvilles in Ohio and Maryland, as well. It is misnamed, as most high school articles are. Geogre 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Americasroof makes a good case for keeping the article above. I don't understand these people who get delete happy with each article that doesn't stand up to every proposed criterian. Kicking222 got it right. Most of the proposed critera is stupid and illogical. mobyrock 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment To Americasroof... you just defeated your own argument. The criteria, apparently, in this case actually SUPPORT keeping the article. However, Kicking222 and you are both right that these criteria are not very good and are not yet actual guidelines; they are a work in progress. Thus, they aren't going to be the linchpin in this argument. I think it would be ridiculous to have articles for all high schools. My hometown has three high schools alone, and many big cities will have tens of them. We're talking thousands of articles if they are allowed to exist. --The Way 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No opinion, but I wanted to second Gazpacho that if consensus is keep, I'd ask that the closing admin Move this to Maryville High School (Missouri) and DAB Maryville High School to include the TN, OH, and MD schools.--Isotope23 18:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — I disagree with nominators assertions. The school "deletion camp" must be operating under a self-perpetuating meme. ;-) — RJH (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment No, there are simply many editors who feel that there are people attempting to put very trivial articles up. High schools simply aren't notable enough to warrant articles, it opens a floodgate.
Also, I want to point out that the two 'notable' individuals who are claimed to be alumni of the school aren't really all that notable and, furthermore, they aren't sourced. The article does not cite anything that shows that they actually attended the school. Finally, being the top school in a number of sports can warrant having an article; the last time this high school won anything was in the 1970's. --The Way 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Way, I don't understand your obsession with this -- especially coming from somebody who is using Wikipedia to post personal photographs of yourself. Are you notable? Should we be careful to avoid the even worse floodgates of millions of individual users using Wikipedia bandwidth for personal scrapbooks? As mentioned the article meets the current draft of criteria: a school with notable alumni, something unique about its mascot, and a school history going back more than 50 years. You say that most schools have notable alumni. Well, if they do, I look forward to their articles being written. The argument is being made in the Spoofhound afd to redirect to this article. Now you're turning around and trying to eliminate this article. Americasroof 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and warning: AfD is for a discussion and vote on an article for deletion, not for an ad hominem directed at a voter. Discussions should be about the articles and the deletion policy, not "all schools" or "people like you" or "deletionists" or anything else. Does an article about a school doing what schools do fit with an encyclopedia as well as a Yellow Pages, almanack, and census report? What makes it more fitting than, say, the red light at 86th and Lexington in NYC, which is doing its job, is seen by thousands, and has had many famous people use it? What is it inherent to this topic that sets it apart? Is it properly located? Is it sufficiently written? Is it useful to readers? Geogre 02:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I attempted to upload a single picture to my userpage, which is, as far as I know, acceptable and if its not I'm more than willing to remove (I've certainly seen it done on a number of userpages). And anyways, the upload didn't work and I'd like to delete the attempt though I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that. That aside, my editing on the site, and I feel I've been by and large a good editor, is not relevant to this particular debate and it seems to be an attempt by yourself to draw attention away from actually pertinent information. There is a major disagreement here about what should determine notability. The school notability guidelines remain a work in progress, they are not yet official and therefore do not necessarily hold. A unique mascot does not create any notability, one could make an argument that every mascot is unique. The criteria of uniqueness are inherently subjective and one look at the article that's a 'list of unique high school mascots' shows that a ridiculous number of schools make this claim. Anyways, that list article is up for deletion and it appears that it will be deleted. I simply do not believe that high schools, unless they are very well known, deserve articles. A lot of other editors agree, a lot disagree. Its a legitimate position and its up to the administrator to decide. Please refrain from personally attacking myself and focus on the argument at hand. You make good points, I hope I do as well; the issue is not clear cut. I just don't like the precedent it sets and think that having articles for every school (and what about every hospital? shopping mall? grade school?) will open the floodgates and is a waste of space. I know you disagree and that disagreement is valid. I have good faith that you are acting in a way that you feel is in the best interest of the Wikipedia and I'd appreciate it if you had the same good faith in me. --The Way 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Deletions, merges, and personal photographs aside, you've got some of my favorite bands listed under your profile. Good taste in music! mobyrock 19:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thanks Moby, my tast in music is great, isn't it ;) I also just wanted to say, as a final means of defending myself (which probably isn't necessary, but please indulge me for a moment) I've only nominated two articles for deletion ever, this being one of them, and the other was not a school. If this article is kept I'll refrain from nominating high schools in the future. I really do want consensus and I really do hope that people don't take my arguing for deletion as an attack upon the school; I'm just doing what I think is good for the Wikipedia. --The Way 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As a longstanding public high school, we have near-complete consensus that such schools are notable. The prominent alumni and unique nickname are all explicit claims of notability that justify retention. The article can only benefit from further expansion and improvement. If we all work together to improve existing articles and create new ones, there's no reason that the nominator's dream of an article for "for every high school in the country" can't be fulfilled. Alansohn 23:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Spoofhound. The school itself is not notable, but it would be useful to have a sentence in the other article that this is the only school to use the Spoofhound as a mascot. —ptk✰fgs 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Has multiple notable alumni. JoshuaZ 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Got sources? --Rob 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Secondary school, ergo not notable. AKAF 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not sure if the second one is meant as a point or not but this does seem to illustrate the degree of division among school editors. JoshuaZ 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC) apparently AKAF means that secondary schools have no inherent notability. JoshuaZ 16:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article on worthwhile topic based on well established (and appropriate) precedent, particularly for high schools. However, the unverified stuff (e.g. alum) will need to be removed. --Rob 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment about vandalism to article to influence voting - For the record Rob vandalized the article after folks had noted the alumni list in their votes. The names removed were:
Comment Thievierr (Rob) posted above in SUPPORT of keeping the article so I doubt this was vandalism. Instead, he seems to have acted appropriately as he explained when he deleted the two notables; they were unsourced and therefore unverified which, as he noted, is enough to legitimately remove them. The article appears that it will be kept anyways, so it probably doesn't matter. --The Way 01:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
They may not be spectacularly notable but even a weak notability shows a good faith effort to make the artice notable. I can't put them back in the article because there will probably be a revert war. Americasroof 01:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let's not be silly with the word "vandalism". I removed the two alum names, because they are not sourced. People are (apparently) "voting" based on the presence of these names. That was wrong. Verifiability is a core principal of Wikipedia. When signficant claims are made, with no sources, or indication sources are likely, and the claims aren't "obvious", or universally known (e.g. "sky is blue") then removal is appropriate, as they are unverifiable. Leaving unsourced alums during the AFD is harmful. We do not want people to add unsourced claims to articles, to save them from AFD. Its difficult (or impossible) to prove most claims false, so the onus of proof is on those who advance a claim. Anybody wishing to keep an article could just make-up something that sounds good. Finally: if we have no waying of knowing if something is true why would we wish to publish it? --Rob 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly important enough to be discussed in its local area. Kappa 01:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apart from being the home of the mighty spoofhound, this has nearly 2,000 hits on Google News Archive. [1]. Plenty of sources for an article. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: your sources are for Maryville High School, but you don't differntiate between the different schools with that name. If you can't be bothered, why should we? Fram 14:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the keeps above, I have nothing more to add here. Silensor 05:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per keeps above, the alumni seem notable, and they won a few championships. I believe that means that the school meets WP:SCHOOL.SuperDT 13:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep one or t'other, but not both: Either delete Spoofhound (up for deletion above) or this one. I suggest deleting Spoofhound since all of that material is incorporated in this article. Hu 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral- seems notable, but needs reliable sources added. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please argument for deletion is very poor wikipedia is not paper Yuckfoo 02:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Nor is it a repository of random information. JoshuaZ 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all schools below the university level per Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Although I could probably live with them being made into redirects to really offensive sex acts per Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Teresa Isaac 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I was done arguing for deletion, but I feel that it should be noted to people making their arguments and to the administrator who will close this article regardless of the outcome, the guidelines for WP:SCHOOLS which have been a large basis for the arguments in favor of keeping high schools has been rejected and therefore do not apply in the least bit anymore. Again, please note that there are thousands of high schools in the US alone and when you take in all secondary schools across the globe (can't even imagine how many there are in India or China, for example) do we really need to have articles for all of them? This is not a directory, we don't have articles for every hospital, every business, every police station, etc. nor do we need them for all high schools. High schools are are relatively the same and Wikipedia is not the proper source to look up there differences. Certainly, there are going to be some (very few) exceptions (like the one mentioned above), but this isn't one of them. --The Way 08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Note to closing administrator: I though I was done arguing for retention but there seem to be a few embers of deletion still glowing dimly. There has been criticism of those who have supported retention of this article who have made reference to WP:SCHOOLS, an effort to create clear objective standards for which school articles should be retained, and which should be deleted. While the guideline did not achieve consensus, it is light years ahead of any other guideline, and stands in stark contrast to the utter lack of any meaningful Wikipedia guideline used by school deletion voters, who must resort to rather insightful "arguments" for deletion, such as "Secondary school, ergo not notable" or "Delete all schools below the university level" or "a random public high school", with the helpful suggestion that redirecting from the schools "to really offensive sex acts" would be an acceptable alternative. It's time that we stopped the staggering waste of time playing AfD Roulette, in which nearly every high school article, with few exceptions, with any meaningful content are retained, demonstrating a clear consensus and explicit precedent for retaining such articles. I recognize that there are those who prefer some arbitrarily high standard for retaining such articles, but unfortunately we have no consensus on these self-imposed made-up standards, let alone anything that approaches the comprehensive, good faith effort to do so at WP:SCHOOLS. If WP:SCHOOLS is unsatisfactory, let's see an alternative standard that will achieve consensus in the community. Alansohn 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Reply: alternative standard? Just use a similar standard for schools as we use for people or even better corporations and companies. Are they run-of-the-mill, or are they exceptional? Are there multiple non-trivial references in secondary, major publications (WP:V)? Taking this school as an example: the only reason I can see for keeping it are the School championships. Having a unique mascotte is quite trivial. Now, I can't find a source for e.g. the wrestling titles, so I can't judge if this is true, and how important this is. And this is a problem with many school articles I have supported the deletion of: either they have no non-trivial info at all, or it is all unreferenced and stays so even after asked for verification. As WP:V clearly says, it is up to those wanting to keep something (either a claim or a whole article) to provide references, not for those wanting to delete it. So in general, my school standards are a combination of WP:NOT, WP:V and the general idea of WP:CORP. Satisfactory? Fram 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Ah, the poor man's choice for justifying deletion: WP:NOT. Basically, WP:NOT is almost always used to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I'm unwilling to come up with an actual argument." It's fine and dandy to trot out WP:NOT as an excuse, but a simple read of the laundry list included there shows no item that is relevant to deleting any and all schools as you imply. If you insist on pursuing WP:NOT as an excuse, can you please share which clause this article (and all other school articles) fail. I see ample information and sources in this article, in full compliance with WP:V. Have you read WP:CORP? is it a "product, company, corporation or other economic entity "? C'mon you can do better. Alansohn 20:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
            • No, you are wrong. Wikipedia is not a directory is often a very good description of what school articles are: nothing but an entry from school directory website. I dod not say (or certainly did not mean) that "every school" fails WP:NOT, that would be ridiculous. But articles like Flynn Park School, St. Catherine Laboure, Fairfax High School (Fairfax, Missouri) or Bayless Senior High School (to name some random examples from Missouri alone) are nothing but directory articles. And I explicitly said "the general idea of WP:CORP, as it does not literally apply (no accepted guideline does). Then again, why would a school not be a corporation?[2] As for your other comments: where are the ample sources per WP:V? "Marc's distinctive high school mascotte collection" (two of the four sources) is not really a "reliable source" for our purposes (and the mascotte is quite trivial anyway): then we have one bary notable alumnus mentioned in his obituary in the local newspaper, and the school website (again not a secondary source per WP:V). So your "ample sources" are one local newspaper article from 1955. Fram 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
              • No, they're not directory articles. They're stubs. Please reference the policy that says that stubs should not be on Wikipedia. In fact, to quote the guideline, a stub's "main interest is to be expanded, and that thus it ideally contains enough information to give a basis for other editors to expand upon". This is exactly what these articles do. The school website verifies the existence of the school, and that's all that's necessary for a stub. -- Necrothesp 19:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: being a school is nothing remarkable. If there are no other verifiable reasons for inclusion (and not trivial ones, like having students, a uniform, a mascotte, a nickname, a motto, and regular inspections), if the school is not remarkable among schools, then why should we have an article for it? The only "category" of articles that merit semi-automatic inclusion for me are towns (villages, cities, ...): all other subjects need to be verifiably remarkable, exceptional, noteworthy, notable, ... withing their "category": for people to have an article, they need to be remarkable people: for companies, they need to be somehow noteworthy: for schools, the same reasoning should apply. Being a school is not more noteworthy than being a post office, nursery or library, and I wouldn't want articles for all those either. Fram 14:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per many of the above. --Myles Long 16:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments above. the mascotte also makes it notable. Audiobooks 20:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, WP:SCHOOLS having been rejected. Accurizer 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I must be missing something here. How does the rejection of WP:SCHOOLS mean we should keep this article? JoshuaZ 17:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply There has been no community consensus to delete schools. Accurizer 19:19, 31 October 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.