Talk:Bow High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Schools Portal
Low This article has been rated as Low-Importance within Schools.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bow High School article.
Article policies

Contents


[edit] Notability

Is there a reason for the notability tag? Unless one is left on the talk page of the article, the tag should be removed - there are several sources on the article, which implies notability. An explanation would be nice? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as unjustified and it shouldn't be replaced without discussion here. TerriersFan (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources that are cited seem to be about individuals who happen to go to the school. Are any of them about the school itself? Dimension31 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Alumni are part of the notability of schools. If you are not happy then AfD it. TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
None of the alumni have achieved enough notability to merit their own articles, yet you think that they contribute to the school's notability. Great logic you have there. Dimension31 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Multiple sports championships in addition to other school accomplishments supported by ample reliable and verifiable sources all establish notability. If you still question this in the face of consensus to the contrary, the next step is AfD. Leaving the notability tag accomplishes nothing and will be removed. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus has not yet been established. Dimension31 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Only issues re notability are coming from one individual. You. Alansohn (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
So far you mean. This issue has only been on the talk page for a few hours. Dimension31 (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook addiction

Can we please gain consensus on whether or not to include this statement:

The use of Facebook has also become a phenomenon amongst students, and many students use the social networking service in their free time.[1]

I definitely don't think it's notable. It's just an opinion piece in the school's newspaper. It can also be said about any HS or college in general. It is also definitely not a controversy. What do others think? Metros (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm in complete agreement. Even if it is true, the same can be said about every high school - both for Facebook use and addiction to mobile phones and iPods. It has no special bearing on this particular school. I would accept it if either a) the degree of use/addiction at this school was unusual or highly significant, and thus had been mentioned in independent sources, or b) there had been a formal study of the issue made at that school. Neither is the case here. Bilby (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree it's not notable, nothing particularly special (based on the ref'd article) about Facebook and the school. Zedla (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also agree it's not notable. Further, the students are not sufficiently expert to give an opinion on what constitutes addiction. TerriersFan (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to include all of the students in that blanket statement. It would be best to judge each student-journalist individually, don't you think? Dimension31 (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Count me in on removal of the supposed "addiction". I'm not sure that there is a high school where students have computer access that has some level of students using Facebook, perhaps a little too often, but this is not the source that would be needed to properly support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Substance abuse

Consensus on the edits regarding substance abuse? There's enough evidence in the references that while there is a level of substance abuse, the DHHS survey in [1] (it's a problem if just one student abuses drugs or alcohol. On the other hand, he said there wasn't enough evidence to seriously consider random drug testing.) and particularly the separate BADco survey ref in [2] (Bow has less of an issue with substance abuse than most of New Hampshire.) indicate a typical community concern which does not rise to the level of a controversy. Zedla (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Enrollments

I removed the "current enrollment" figure of 640. The reference quotes 612, not 640. But given that the reference is undated, I'm not inclined to believe that the figure of 612 is current, either (for all I know that reference is several years old). So I've removed the figure, subject to a better reference to support it. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That 640 figure is listed in some other spots too, so I'll remove those too. Dimension31 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh! Thanks for pointing that out. There is a decent ref for one of those - I'll follow it up and use that one, if it is accurate. The Bow High School history doesn't support the figure, but if the other ref does than I'm happy. Thanks Dimension31! - Bilby (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)