Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pecatonica High School (Wisconsin)

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:SNOW (and, I guess, WP:HEY). I think the consensus to keep is quite obvious now, especially now that the article has been rewritten and sourced. This is also a good example of why brand new articles shouldn't usually be brought to AfD (although I'm sure the nom was indeed acting in good faith). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pecatonica High School (Wisconsin)

Pecatonica High School (Wisconsin) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Substub, no assertion of notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced, no assertion of notability (which means it qualifies for speedy deletion, but some admins are reluctant to do so for school articles for some unknown reason). Article is just one sentence. So it faills WP:V and WP:N. Also, schools are NOT automatically notable and there is no guideline or policy that says they are (since most high school AFDs have someone claiming this). TJ Spyke 01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I admit that I don't think most schools deserve an article (and get annoyed when people incorrectly say that high schools are automatically notable), but this one has been expanded and sourced with notable claims. I would like to point out that articles should state why the subject is notable as soon as it is created (so nominating an article for deletion the same day it's created is acceptable). Also, "most schools articles are kept so this one should too" is not a good enough reason to vote Keep. TJ Spyke 06:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Nominating the same day as created seems like a bad plan in general unless it's a clear speedy case (IMO). Discuss/tag first, then nominate. This isn't a race. Hobit (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep: asserts notability. SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? Which part? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Article was moved to make room for a dab, and relevant afd links updated. JERRY talk contribs 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • (Weak) Delete per nom – Zedla (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • While the article has improved in response to the AFD, I'm troubled by many of the similarities in added content from the cited sources. Zedla (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Isn't that a clean-up problem and not a reason for deletion? Hobit (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. While high schools are usually kept, some just don't assert notability. 01:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Keep. Nice job! J-ſtanContribsUser page 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The school asserts notability now. The article was all of 90 minutes old when it went to AfD. An editor is currently working to improve it. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, which assertion in the article did you think was notable? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Basically just the award. It is a form of recognition, and we should let the article be expanded. Remember, we don't currently have a notability guideline for schools, just a proposal. J-ſtanContribsUser page 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, this one has been cleaned up considerably since the nom, which by the way is extremely bad faith by Anetode to nominate only an hour and a half after the article was created. Chris (クリス) (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The article was nothing but crap upon creation, it should have been speedied. Jerry has been gracious enough to clean it up, but without this nomination having been brought to his attention, we would still be left with a useless substub. You want bad faith? Check out C:CSD sometime. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There are several other positive, productive methods to bring poor quality articles to the attention of editors. AfD is for deleting or keeping, not improving. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought that nominating a poor quality article on a non-notable subject was a positive and productive method of maintaining Wikipedia standards. If I saw a prospect for creating a decent article on Pecatonica High, I would have filled out the stub myself, or at least tagged it for improvement. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't intend to say that nominating for AfD is not a positive and productive method of maintaining Wikipedia standards. As I said, AfD is for discussion of deleting and subtracting is occasionally a positive thing. My reply was intended to focus on just that an article ought not to be brought to AfD to be given attention. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a contributor to this article, I'd like to point out that this article has been listed for quite some time on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools/US/Wisconsin, and identified by others as a notable school lacking an article. 90 minutes is simply not enough time to do the required research to determine independantly if there are sources to assert notability. Future comments on this AFD should be based on the improved article, not previous comments. JERRY talk contribs 02:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It was identified as an entry in an unannotated list. As of right now, the claims for notability include: 1) a one-time non-notable award created as a public relations maneuver by the superintendent; 2) participation as one of a few dozen schools in a state-wide environmental initiative; 3) participation as one of 28 schools whose teachers received training in a DNR workshop; and 4) an alumni who played in the minor leagues. I'm sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. I don't see one compelling reference to this school's importance, uniqueness, or notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It does not have to be unique nor important to be notable. The only requirement for notability is the subject has received non-trivial mention in published independant sources. As to whether the superintendant created the award as a ploy, I can not claim to have the inside information that you allude to. Please provide a reference for that statement. Of the hundreds of schools in Wisconsin, this was one of less than a dozen to receive such an award. JERRY talk contribs 02:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The awards were created in 2005 (and only given out that year) by the superintendent to honor the community garden, the Oconto Falls Performing Arts Center, the Annual Veterans' Day Program, a couple of cities, several school districts, etc. It was a bulk affirmation that is neither notable nor independent of the Wisconsin public school system. In all of the sources you used to compile info about this school, I've yet to see a non-trivial mention of this school or an explanation of its notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (e/c)
Comment: According to the notability guidelines for schools, "High schools/secondary schools are regarded as notable unless encyclopaedic material is not available." I think the amount of data on this school is more than enough to merit an article. Plus, for what it's worth, we're not running a paper encyclopedia here. SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I can amass a rather large amount of data from various directories about any number of non-notable topics. And there is indeed a dearth of encyclopedic, or even secondary source, coverage of this school. Most of Jerry's information is compiled from primary sources that cover numerous schools (i.e., no "non-trivial coverage"). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
So, are you arguing against me or policy? Because from what you just said, it seems like according to policy, this school is notable. SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Please re-read my previous comment as it directly challenges the assertion that this article meets WP:N or WP:RS. There is insufficient unique coverage from independent sources to justify any claim of notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your post. I may have to agree with you about the information about the awards. But we seem to be disagreeing on what qualifies as "encyclopedic material." According to Wiki, if it has enc. material, it is notable. But according to you, the encyclopedic material has to be of notability, which I see as using the word in the definition, or circular reasoning. No, it hasn't been listed in secondary sources, but that doesn't mean that information on it isn't encyclopedic. encyclopedic (according to wiktionary) is "having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge." SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I interpret the school notability guideline #2 as saying, "If it's a high school, and there's real detailed info on it, like more than its address and number of students, then it deserves an article." Which I think is very reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMD80 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(De-indent, I wrote this reply to your original comment, but it applies equally to the edit.) I was using "encyclopedic" in the context of Wikipedia editorial policies, meaning article content that meets our inclusion and sourcing standards. Not to get too much further into semantics, but the definition you quote from wiktionary is synonymous with "indiscriminate", so that's when the circle breaks. The information added by Jerry may be useful in rounding out the school's coverage if there was a solid basis for asserting notability, but I don't see it providing such a basis by itself. Just as information on special training and accreditation should be mentioned in someone's biography for the sake of completeness, that information is not a substitute for any notable achievements or non-trivial coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I definitely didn't mean indiscriminate info, I'm sorry if there was confusion, but I still disagree-- You said that encyclopedic meant "article content that meets our inclusion and sourcing standards." The policy basically specifies that for the article to meet our standards of inclusion, it must be a high school and be encyclopedic. Substituting your definition of encyclopedic, we can complete the policy by saying, "For the article to meet our standards of inclusion and sourcing, it must be a high school and meet our incluion and sourcing standards." This is using the word in the definition. SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Right... Well, I'm always one for redundancy. The basic problem with the article, abstaining from any use of the word "encyclopedic", is that it doesn't identify Pecatonia High as an interesting, unique school that has received substantial independent coverage. There's a bit of a problem with nominations like this, since any crap article (and sorry, but it was utter crap) gets listed on the school-related afd list, whereupon a well-meaning editor comes along to fill the article out. The problem is that this editor is often of the mind that school's are automatically notable and that any info found on the school, even if it is primary source promotional fluff, means that it is notable. Other editors who comment on the deletion discussion take a brief look at the article, see proper formatting, some text, and outside ref links, and make the assumption that a certain mass of verifiable info equates to a claim of notability. If you take a critical look at the assertions and sourcing, I don't think that any claim currently presented in the Pecatonica High article makes the school independently notable. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please do not disparage other editors' views and their review of the article. Despite views being different, it is just as likely that they have read the article carefully and done additional research into the subject as much as you have. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I'm not convinced that all editors who offered their opinion have done their research, I don't want to single out or criticize any user. Views on the issue of school notability differ widely and I'm sorry if you felt disparaged by my remarks. The problem I wanted to bring up was one of uneven standards. For every school article valiantly rescued by efforts of editors who watchlist school-related afds, I've seen dozens of school articles in irreparable states of mediocrity. Many such articles will never improve and are subject to constant vandalism from their students. A consensus for keeping all school articles, or for accepting liberal notions of notability, will, in my view, result in spotty overall coverage. A minority of articles would meet Wikipedia quality standards and the majority would become either bare to the point of being tantamount to directory entries or filled with unverified info accidentally left over when reverting vandalism. However I want to make it clear that I did not nominate or comment here in bad faith, my primary concern remains with the merits of Pecatonia High and the available coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (e/c)
  • I suppose we disagree. The article, 1½ hours old, when nominated, was definitely a poor stub but it did say the subject was a high school and gave its location. That, in my experience, is usually enough for others to expand and publicly-funded schools generally get significant coverage in reliable sources. If there are terrible school articles out there, then there should be a place to list them for repair and release those interested in school articles from AfD rescue to work there instead. If all we were concerned about was the chance of vandalism, then many good articles would have been deleted out of fear. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Anetode, I don't know why you keep suggesting the subject of an article has to be unique to be notable. We would have a very small encyclopedia indeed, if this criteria became policy. And now you have added interesting. I find THAT interesting. The editors who have commented here did not say I glanced at it for a few seconds and it has the same sillhouette as a good school article, so let's keep it. They all say the same thing... the article is more than a simple list, and it is a high school,and Jimbo has said here that if it exists, it is a high school, and it has more than just a listing format entry, then it should be kept. You see there is actual guidance on these things. Nobody said it has to be unique, nobody said it has to be interesting, nobody said important... just had to have content, encyclopedic content, if you will, and can be proven to exist. These awards prove it exists.... be they boring, common, and unimportant or what-have-you. It is a high school. JERRY talk contribs 04:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Jerry, I take issue with the coverage used in your cleanup. I don't think that referencing a one-time award distributed as a promotional gesture by the superintendent qualifies as using independent coverage to establishes notability. The same goes for the other assertions made in the article. I would appreciate if you would care to comment on the criticisms enumerated above. This is not meant as a personal criticism, I am quite impressed by your willingness to improve an article. Please note that I am familiar with the guidance offered for school articles, both from Jimbo and the content policies. The guidance doesn't point to a clear consensus to keep all school articles, nor to a special exception from meeting the general standards of notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that you do not approve of the recently added content. While I agree that this content does not define notability for the school, I do maintain that it provides a certain fullness, a certain roundedness, and the certain je ne sais quoi that an article has to have to be more than a mere listing. While the WP:SCL is not de jure (has not been officially ratified), it has the effect of being in force, de facto, in that over and over again articles get nominated for deletion, and the same outcome prevails. High school articles are almost invariably kept. They are the kind of institutions that have a place of importance in their communities that certainly means that sources will be found for them. One only has to look. It is a matter of convenience to assume that high school articles are notable, in order to avoid all this wasted time. We collectively write thousands of words about how 50 words need to be deleted, and to what end? A this article survived AFD banner on a talk page. Nearly every single time. The bright lines provided by WP:SCHOOL are convenient, and they are very much in effect, ratified or not, in daily AFD discussions. This AFD is yet more proof. JERRY talk contribs 05:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
So, while you agree that the current coverage does not define notability for the school, you maintain that it is proof for keeping all school articles? I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with an approach which dictates that all schools are notable on the grounds of convenience. Although I do sympathize with your observation that all parties have wasted much, much more time discussing this school than could possibly be seen as productive. Frankly, I don't think that messy AfD discussions are too high of a price to pay for preventing the existence of articles on non-notable schools. That position ignores the attendant difficulties of maintaining a worldwide directory of school-related articles and demanding consistent breadth, quality, and protection from vandalism. Nonetheless it is clear that there is a determined contingent of editors bent on preserving such articles through afd test cases. Since my assessment of this article appears to be the minority view and since many participants apparently have their minds made up on the whole school issue, I am going go find a more productive way to use my time. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this issue. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that another de facto policy, "Jimbo is always right" is backed up by a quote (linked above) which might as well be written for this very dispute. Regardless of which-policy-can-be-interpreted-this-or-that-way, Jimbo clearly says that "It is a reasonable thing to do... to relax and accomodate" the article in question. SeanMD80talk | contribs 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
De-indent for a quick note: As I recall, Jimbo recently made another statement on school articles, one less favorable of the live and let live approach. Of course neither statement should be used as an excuse not to think for yourself. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, pur-lease. We thought for ourselves for a long time, and now were showing that other people, who matter a lot, think like we do. I'm not interested in turning this into an ad hominem argument. I think we should stop, agree to disagree, and let somebody come and decide this. Both parties seem to have exhausted their points and it's getting late. SeanMD80talk | contribs 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: the article contains sufficient information about the high school to assert notability. Mh29255 (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - encyclopaedic page and plenty of sources available for further expansion. We delete pages where notability cannot be established not those, as here, which are plainly notable and where the article is being developed. TerriersFan (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Verifiable, NPOV, high school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Just being a high school doesn't mean anything. High schools don't get any special treatment. TJ Spyke 06:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: notability established. And if I may observe, if an article is 90 minutes old and you don't think notability has been established yet, that's when you tag it for notability and give the editor(s) a chance to, yanno, finish creating the thing before bringing it directly to AfD. Let the process work. Give the editors time without jogging their elbows. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Now a properly referenced notable high school. (Thanks Jerry and anyone else who worked to improve the article).--Cube lurker (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Quasirandom, including the sentiment expressed. Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability established. Further:
  • One should only bring things to AfD that you don't believe can establish notability.
  • One should tag articles for notability before you bring them to AfD and wait a while.
  • Unless it's a speedy case, I don't see the justification of ever bringing an article for deletion that's 90 minutes old.
Hobit (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as it meets WP:N. The nominator should know by now that AfD is the last, not the first option to take when there are others available. WP:BITE also applies to the nominator's actions. Wikipedia favors consensus, so actions that simply rile other editors, especially when the outcome is almost certain, are discouraged. If you want to find older school articles to nominate, go to the Category:High schools in the United States or Category:Middle schools in the United States or Category:Elementary schools in the United States and you'll find plenty of older articles in the various state subcategories. Was this nomination a deliberate attempt to provoke editors' ire? I don't know, but the nominator isn't being helpful. Noroton (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, WP:BITE doesn't apply. This does, from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD page, you know, the main page for 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. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Noroton (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I take offense at your insinuations. I think you are confusing vigorous disagreement with disruption and I assure you that it was not my goal to annoy editors or put forth a frivolous nomination. Condescending to users for having the gall to nominate an article they don't see as meeting WP:N is not helpful either. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a classic example of why it's wrong to nominate an article that's not obvious spam or vandalism within two hours of its creation (it actually got a speedy tag WITHIN ONE MINUTE of its creation) without doing proper research (see WP:OSTRICH) and giving time for an article to improve, a violation of Wikipedia:Editing policy. --Oakshade (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2008 (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.