Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Clayton 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 per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:N, WP:HEY, and WP:SNOW. Bearian 17:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Clayton High School

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

been around for almost a year, and nothing to really show for it. Lacking sources and anything to establish notability. Arthur 23:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep aren't all high schools notable? RMHED 01:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. High schools are generally notable, if for no other reason than their sports programs. —dustmite 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep High Schools are notable, this is a general wiki practice. I have seen several High School stubs eventually turn into excellent articles, it can just take time. Moheroy 02:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — For all I know this is a one-room school house. The current content doesn't satisfy my personal criteria for High School notability so I can't support a keep. — RJH (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Clicking on the link to the schools website will inform you that they have almost 1,500 students. RMHED 17:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't be an ostrich. At least do a little research before you comment here. Zagalejo^^^ 19:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep At least some of these articles should count towards notability. Zagalejo^^^ 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the school's curriculum and programs, combined with a sequence of state championships, all supported by reliable and verifiable sources, satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm changing my vote - there has been excellent improvement to the aritcle - kudos to those involved. Arthur 21:38, 11 November 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.