Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rossview High School

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 no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rossview High School

Non-notable high school with no assertions of notability. Also fails WP:SCHOOLS. TJ Spyke 02:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Please note that WP:SCHOOLS suggests a merge for valid schools articles that fail it's criteria. So I don't see it as a deletion criteria, even though nominators seem to keep insisting on using it as such. — RJH (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the town article. — RJH (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep — It meets my personal criteria for notability. Thanks. — RJH (talk)
• Strong delete. Not to mention the repeated vandalisms by its students. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even the creator of the article seemed to think it wasn't notable, and just wanted to vent about something. I'm surprised there have been attempts to rescue the article from deletion. =Axlq 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been improved since it was first nominated, and now adequately demonstrates notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, greatest of all keepers, explain how the article demonstrates notability. -- Kicking222 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please take note of the references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Why is it that deletionists just vote NN Delete, and nobody even mentions it yet as soon as someone votes keep they are asked (in highly sarcastic tones sometimes!) to justify themselves? Jcuk 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Since for almost any article type (see for examples WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:PROF) notability is not a default presumption. Notability must be demonstrated. JoshuaZ 04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Not really an answer, since whether notability is demonstrated or not is frequently an opinion, not a foregone conclusion, which was the essence of the question. You can't just claim something is non-notable (just as you can't just claim that something is notable); you also have to say why it's not notable. Frequently in these debates (and with PRODed articles) I read the article and am at a complete loss as to why anyone should think it wasn't notable. The deletionists often seem to believe that determination of notability is their prerogative alone, hence the desire of non-deletionists to know their exact reasoning and not just a "NN Delete"-type response. -- Necrothesp 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Well it is an answer. Any object by default isn't notable. A good rule of thumb in this regard for when dealing with common objects (such as schools) is that subjects to be notable need to meet some criterion which makes them distinctive from the norm. Hence, people point to age or the point of many notable alumni or something similar. Essentially, what makes this school at all different from any others? If you can't point to anything it isn't notable. JoshuaZ 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
              • As I'm sure you know, as far as schools are concerned many people believe that all schools (or at least all secondary schools) are notable, for reasons explained many times over on many different AfDs, and thus the "any object by default isn't notable" argument is disputed with regard to this particular subject. But my point was a general one, as was the original question. Just claiming non-notability without explaining why is, in my opinion, contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Some things are blatantly non-notable to pretty much everybody, true, but many articles that are nominated for deletion do in many people's eyes already establish notability. When notability is obviously clear to some, it is not productive to vote simply NN. -- Necrothesp 18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This school is so non-notable, it can't even pass WP:SCHOOLS, and I think I know dog trainers whose schools pass those criteria. I'm all for a merge if an article on the school's district exists. -- Kicking222 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to assert notability.--Húsönd 03:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, doesn't meet the criteria in the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOLS. Lots of schools have marching bands, as well - this one having one doesn't make it more notable. --Coredesat 04:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. --Mycroft.Holmz 04:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Cedars 04:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless.MonkBirdDuke 08:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All schools, particularly high schools, have an inherent potential claim of notability. The article as it stands, particularly with the improvements wrought by TruthbringerToronto (who has again stepped up to the plate to improve articles), justifies its retention and future expansion. Deletion is destruction. Alansohn 18:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree, saying that all schools have an inherent claim of notability is like saying every individual person has an inherent claim of notability. TJ Spyke 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment schools have no better "inherent claim of notability" than your local Wal-Mart. I abstain here, but that is a particularly poor line of reasoning.--Isotope23 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: A school, and particularly a public high school, has an inherent claim of notability that no Wal-Mart -- and certainly no individual person -- can ever make. Society seems to have this thing with education and schools that confers an inherent notability for all schools in general, and for each particular one. We are taxed to fund universal public education and required to send our children to school for an education (or to educate them independently). Wal-Mart meets none of these criteria. While I do not believe that every school deserves a Wikipedia article, I do believe that any one of them starts with a greater leg up on notability than does any Wal-Mart store or any individual. While this article will benefit greatly from expansion, the article (as updated) more than meets the minimum standards for retention. I disagree that schools are no more notable than a Wal-Mart (or an individual), which I find to be a particularly poor line of reasoning. Alansohn 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
      • This article does not meet the standards for retention, would you mind explaining how it does? It fails all the criteria of WP:SCHOOL, and two of the external links are the same article (one just re-prints what the other said). TJ Spyke 21:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, I find your line of reasoning to be particularly poor (talking to Alansohn, not TJ). Society does have "this thing with education," which justifies articles on education, public education, compulsory education, etc. Society likewise has a "thing" with shopping, commerce, corporations, corporate welfare, the economy, etc. Neither of these "things," however, justify articles on individual schools or individual Wal-marts. Pan Dan 22:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Agree with Pan Dan. I'm required to pay taxes that pay for Police Stations and Fire Departments as well; that doesn't mean we need articles on every precinct station in America. Sorry, that just isn't compelling reasoning Alansohn.--Isotope23 00:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, high schools are inherently notable as long-term public institutions. Repeated vandalism is not a reason to delete an article, it is a reason to protect it. DWaterson 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nothing in the article suggests any notability. Edgecution 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep cleaned up article is worth keeping.  ALKIVAR™ 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alkivar and TT. We have many mechanisms in place to deal with vandalism, and deletion is not one of them. Silensor 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't nominate because of the vandalism, I nominated because the high school is in no way notable and fails WP:SCHOOL. And NO, schools are NOT inherently notable. TJ Spyke 21:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The school meets WP:SCHOOL Criterion 4: "The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools." It was on the No Child Left Behind hit list in 2003. It instituted a apecial tutoring program for students with inadequate English skills, emphasizing peer tutoring by seniors in advanced English, and all students were brought up to meet all federal benchmarks by 2005. Many fine high schools have not been so fortunate. This special program and technique diffentiates it from other schools and merits its having an article. The article is still stubby and could use revision. I added the info on test scores being far above the state averages, and the peer tutoring.Edison 22:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. I'm puzzled by the assertions that it should be deleted because it "fails WP:SCHOOL". You did notice the disclaimer at the top of that particular article that it is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline etc did you? Proposals are not policies. -- Necrothesp 00:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think a consensus needs to be reached at WP:SCHOOL before we start deleting articles on high schools. -Elmer Clark 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All schools are notable enough. Konman72 06:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you please explain how all schools are notable? I very much disagree with that. TJ Spyke 06:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Explain why you disagree then. -- Necrothesp 09:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Useless and non-notable. --GoodSamaritan 13:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alansohn and others who pointed out the issue of high schools and notability. Johnbrownsbody 11:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Its notable to the people who go to the school. Somethings can be local and notable. Alpharigel 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My house is notable to me and everyone who lives with me, does that mean it deserves an article too? TJ Spyke 18:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you believe someone is going to be looking for information about your house, then yes! Alpharigel 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I suspect that hundreds of people do not live in your house! -- Necrothesp 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • True, but my point was that saying the school is notable just because its students think so doesn't make sense. TJ Spyke 19:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The more substantial example might be local garage bands that don't meet WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, large secondary school with over 1000 students. bbx 21:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 'A special tutoring and peer advising program was implemented after inadequate performance in the 2003 No Child Left Behind tests which helped to bring the school up to all federal benchmarks by 2005.' means it meets WP:SCHOOLS #5 'The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools.' Cynical 17:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Cynical. I'm not convinced this is that unique a program but its a good start JoshuaZ 04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TruthBringerToronto and Joshuaz. --Myles Long 07:07, 23 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.