Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McAuley High School (Cincinnati, Ohio)

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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McAuley High School (Cincinnati, Ohio)

McAuley High School (Cincinnati, Ohio) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Another non-notable Ohio school. Seinfreak37 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Ohio Articles in development. Updates made to this article. EagleFan 16:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No notability asserted whatsoever, and it doesn't seem likely that any can be found. Veinor (talk to me) 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — Meets my personal standards for H.S. notability. — RJH (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, what are you personal standards for notability? That it exists? ConDemTalk 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Keep per Alansohn, below. ConDemTalk 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep School's recognition in 1999-2000 by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, accompanied by WP:RS and WP:V sources constitute an explicit claim of notability. This award clearly satisfies Criteria 2 of WP:SCHOOL, which states "The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction, or for its success at the national level in extracurricular activities such as art or athletics.". Statements of the ilk of "No notability asserted whatsoever, and it doesn't seem likely that any can be found" are decidedly biased and unhelpful, and are demonstrative of a failure to perform even the most basic research before participating in an AfD. Rather than targeting the articles created by this individual as one set deserving knee-jerk deletion, it would be helpful for our nominator User:Seinfreak37 whose "Another non-notable Ohio school" shows little insight, or User:WMMartin who has made the exact same vote in every one of these discussions, to review each article independently and make an informed decision, rather than cloning multiple AfDs or cutting and pasting the same text multiple times. Alansohn 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: At what point does the burden of research and asserting notability fall on the article creator? The author, by creating article after article after article without demonstrating notability, is not being helpful. If the author was doing this with subjects other than Schools (such as people or businesses), all of these articles would be speedy deletes. But since there is not yet a policy on Schools, he can get away with it? That seems illogical. -Seinfreak37 15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It falls on both. I will never vote to keep an article where I haven't read the article in question and made an effort to check sources. I won't vote to delete if I haven't read the article and checked for additional evidence of notability. If I find additional material, I will make every effort to add it before voting. If I can't find it, I will make every effort to find a target for a merge/redirect. Is this Wikipedia policy? No. But I do believe it's a level of intellectual honesty, and as stated at WP:AfD, "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Most school articles, especially at the high school level, are far from hopeless. Of course the primary burden falls on the creator. And I have posted a lengthy note on his talk page pleading that he focus on a smaller number of quality articles, rather than creating a stub for every high school in Ohio. But it seems no easier to justify a laundry list of AfDs as it is to create a laundry list of articles. These stubs are expandable in many cases, and it isn;t hard to do so, just not when dozens of such articles are listed for AfD. Alansohn 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the spectacular rationale provided by Alansohn, I agree that this subject is notable enough for Wikipedia coverage. (jarbarf) 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, although WMMartin notes that this is one of many high school articles EagleFan has suddenly created, at the top of this discussion EagleFan says he's developing them. Give the editor a few months, I say. I think all high schools are inherently notable, for many of the same reasons as User:RJHall/High Schools, but my own take on it is here. Noroton 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep school is notable, article should stay, but needs a clean up and some more references LordHarris 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Public high schools are inherently notable, and Blue Ribbon schools especially so. --Elonka 22:27, 25 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.