Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Brunswick 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. Whispering(talk/c) 21:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Brunswick High School
This article does not appear significant enough for inclusion in wikipedia Senordingdong 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Long-established high school, non-stub article. No reason to delete. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We're done debating schools for now. We keep 'em all. Deet 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks significant enough to me. Silensor 01:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not per any precedent of keeping schools but per the age of the school and presence of notable alumni. JoshuaZ 01:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep A thorough article for a public high school that is worthy of retention. Considering that it was created today, I'd say that it already more than meets any minimum standards for a Wikipedia school article. Let's close this one quickly. Alansohn 02:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, appears significant enough to be an indisputable part of the "sum of all human knowledge" we are sharing and to merit an encylopedic treatment. Kappa 03:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this is a 90 yr old school and a nice article too Yuckfoo 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Looks like a reasonable article for an encyclopaedia. Pseudomonas 12:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is the creator of the NBHS article. (I'm also a member of the class of 2002 and a lifelong NB resident.) I would like to thank everyone who is supporting this article. I would also like to note that I'm planning on expanding this article further to include information on the school's curriculum, electives, extracurricular activities, notable alumni, and more on the school's athletic programs. I will be making additions in the next few days, and of course any help is appreciated. Mikibacsi1124 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — It looks like this article more than satisfies the proposed WP:SCHOOLS criteria. — RJH (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Secondary level educational institutions and above are inherently notable. Yamaguchi先生 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per schoolwatch flood above --ForbiddenWord 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I hope that that's a joke because that essentially comes down pretty close to "keep" per lots of people screaming it already. (I'm even a keep vote in this one and I find this to be a ridiculous comment). JoshuaZ 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment it demonstrates that there is consensus within the community that schools are notable. --ForbiddenWord 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No it doesn't. It demonstrates that lots of people are chiming in because they saw the same issue. (This is precisely why I don't think the Schoolwatch or the general deletion categorization is a good idea). Fanaticism of a few is not the same thing as a consensus to keep. JoshuaZ 00:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'd say the fact that we have unanimous support to Keep this article is a demonstration of true consensus, not "fanaticism." And isn't the definition of a "fanatic" someone who consistently disagrees with what you think is right. I hope that all participants in these AfD's would read through the articles and try to improve them (if possible) or make constructive suggestions for improvement, before voting, rather than making a knee-jerk vote to Delete OR Keep. But, even with the weasel words, when a "fanatic" like JoshuaZ voted to Keep, this AfD should he have been closed immediately. Alansohn 01:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment My criticism was not directed at this article by itself where I agree the consensus is to keep it was to the claim that "there is consensus within the community that schools are notable." In any event, I'm certainly not a deletionist fanatic, I vote keep on about a 1/3 or so of school AfDs. And in this case, I use fanatic to mean people who don't do anything other than vote keep per the exact same arguments and who seem to spend most of their time only editing schools articles. Fanatic might not be the best phrasing. It might be better to call these repeated keeps "not obviously representative samples of the community as a whole." JoshuaZ 01:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'd say the fact that we have unanimous support to Keep this article is a demonstration of true consensus, not "fanaticism." And isn't the definition of a "fanatic" someone who consistently disagrees with what you think is right. I hope that all participants in these AfD's would read through the articles and try to improve them (if possible) or make constructive suggestions for improvement, before voting, rather than making a knee-jerk vote to Delete OR Keep. But, even with the weasel words, when a "fanatic" like JoshuaZ voted to Keep, this AfD should he have been closed immediately. Alansohn 01:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No it doesn't. It demonstrates that lots of people are chiming in because they saw the same issue. (This is precisely why I don't think the Schoolwatch or the general deletion categorization is a good idea). Fanaticism of a few is not the same thing as a consensus to keep. JoshuaZ 00:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment it demonstrates that there is consensus within the community that schools are notable. --ForbiddenWord 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I hope that that's a joke because that essentially comes down pretty close to "keep" per lots of people screaming it already. (I'm even a keep vote in this one and I find this to be a ridiculous comment). JoshuaZ 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Decent article about a large secondary school. Blatantly notable. -- Necrothesp 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What does "blatantly notable" mean? Assertions are not arguments. JoshuaZ 00:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. My argument was in the previous sentence (it's a large school, enough said), not the one you kindly just quoted, which was merely a conclusion drawn from that. May I respectfully suggest you read the whole thing before being generous enough to enlighten me on the difference between an assertion and an argument. -- Necrothesp 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry. I didn't realize the two sentences were connected. I interpreted the first as general argument for keeping on grounds of size (not necessarily connected to notability per se) and then that it was "blatantly notable". JoshuaZ 20:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. My argument was in the previous sentence (it's a large school, enough said), not the one you kindly just quoted, which was merely a conclusion drawn from that. May I respectfully suggest you read the whole thing before being generous enough to enlighten me on the difference between an assertion and an argument. -- Necrothesp 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What does "blatantly notable" mean? Assertions are not arguments. JoshuaZ 00:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, this article meets even the most narrow interpretation of the guidelines proposed at WP:SCHOOLS. Bahn Mi 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Although it does not have notability in terms of what would be expected for a private enterprise, it is a public institution connected to several hundred students and thousands of tax payers. Notability was not asserted, but is not an issue as private enterprises would require who don't have thousands of tax payer's interests involved. Arbusto 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Arbusto, Necrothesp, etc. --Myles Long 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable enough--Aldux 11:16, 22 September 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.
