Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noblesville 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 defaulting to keep. Non-admin closure. Feel free to revert if this is inappropriate. --Polaron | Talk 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Noblesville High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- Delete: Non-notable per WP:NOT; possible WP:COI, advertising Maplewooddrive 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity -- my opinion is the same re this junky article -- why is/would every high school be notable?? If that were the case Wikipedia would be almost twice the size it is now.Maplewooddrive 12:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are four million high schools? Alansohn 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No! There are on the order of 1 million primary schools on Earth. There are on the order of 10,000 high schools in the US. SolidPlaid 06:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity -- my opinion is the same re this junky article -- why is/would every high school be notable?? If that were the case Wikipedia would be almost twice the size it is now.Maplewooddrive 12:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Having grown up nearby, I can confirm that the school probably has some measure of notability, but there's no data here to support that. Further, though cleanup is not a reason to delete, the article itself appears to be unsalvageable. With all respect, a fresh start is warranted, with no prejudice to a properly sourced article being recreated in the future. ZZ Claims ~
Evidence 13:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Rewrite. If there was a school district page to redirect to, I'd say redirect it...but, there isn't...I would disagree with the advertising part, though...I don't think a public high school would have any reason to advertise. Smashville 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Smashville, if you think the article should be rewritten you should do so. Voting to keep and rewrite is no guarantee that the article will be properly rewritten and made notable if kept. It is kind of an easy way out. Maplewooddrive 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know enough about the subject to rewrite it myself. Smashville 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Maplewooddrive, voting to delete only sweeps the problem under the rug for now and makes it more likely that a recreated article in the future will be no better. Deletion is just an easy way out of your obligations of the nominator under Wikipedia:deletion policy to work to improve the article before proposing articles for deletion (which do not seem to have been met at all). The article as it stands now makes claims of notability, and can be a framework for future expansion so that it satisfies even your definition of notability. Deleting it accomplishes nothing. Alansohn 21:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Smashville, if you think the article should be rewritten you should do so. Voting to keep and rewrite is no guarantee that the article will be properly rewritten and made notable if kept. It is kind of an easy way out. Maplewooddrive 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — There is no consensus criteria for High School notability, so I use my own. This is a satisfactory stub article. — RJH (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is. It's the same thing EVERY article has to pass: WP:N. TJ Spyke 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely right, TJ Maplewooddrive 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - Major high school and consensus has shown that high school articles are kept. --Oakshade 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your rationale? Good admins will ignore votes like yours since you didn't give a reason. TJ Spyke 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never seen a user attack a closing admin before an AfD closure. Good admins follow WP:CONSENSUS which feels that high schools are notable (see WP:OUTCOMES) and this AfD will likely demonstrate so. --Oakshade 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Outcomes is just an essay filled with opinions and unsourced statistics. Saying "Keep per OUTCOMES" is the worst thing to happen in AFD discussion since people started doing it a few months ago. Good admins listen to the arguments, and the fact is that this article does not (in its current state) pass the guidelines and policies in place. OUTCOMES is an opinion piece, and thats it. TJ Spyke 04:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OUTCOMES demonstrates current WP:CONSENSUS on various subjects including high schools. I guess this needs to be bold, Stop attacking and insulting closing administrators. --Oakshade 06:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have I attacked anyone? I am just stating what a good admin should do. Also, OUTCOMES is unsourced and shows no proof for the consensuses stated on that page. Also, in the last year or so many school related articles have been deleted (whereas they used to be kept for no reason). If people are going to cite that opinion page, it should have sources. TJ Spyke 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OUTCOMES demonstrates current WP:CONSENSUS on various subjects including high schools. I guess this needs to be bold, Stop attacking and insulting closing administrators. --Oakshade 06:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Outcomes is just an essay filled with opinions and unsourced statistics. Saying "Keep per OUTCOMES" is the worst thing to happen in AFD discussion since people started doing it a few months ago. Good admins listen to the arguments, and the fact is that this article does not (in its current state) pass the guidelines and policies in place. OUTCOMES is an opinion piece, and thats it. TJ Spyke 04:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never seen a user attack a closing admin before an AfD closure. Good admins follow WP:CONSENSUS which feels that high schools are notable (see WP:OUTCOMES) and this AfD will likely demonstrate so. --Oakshade 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your rationale? Good admins will ignore votes like yours since you didn't give a reason. TJ Spyke 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Noting in the article says why the school is notable or deserves an article. Fails WP:N. TJ Spyke 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since mainstream high schools are almost always shown to be notable, I think the onus is on the delete !voters to show that they have researched the school and did not find any independent media coverage. Zagalejo^^^ 20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the burden of proof lies on those claiming an article to be notable. Also, citing OUTCOMES is like citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because some other high school article was kept doesn't mean all should. TJ Spyke 04:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a deep and fundamental difference between WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OUTCOMES. All WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does is state that there happen to be other articles similar to the one in question that exist on Wikipedia. WP:OUTCOMES indicates that similar articles have been run through the Articles for Deletion gauntlet multiple times (for high schools, it's well into the hundreds), and the consistent result has been that these articles reach a consensus for retention. As with places, highways and state-level elected officials, consensus is that high schools are notable. This consensus demonstrated by the results of hundreds of such AfDs for high schools is an extremely meaningful guide for retention of this article and all other high school articles. Alansohn 04:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a deep difference in your examples. There are guidelines that say places and highways are automatically notable. There is nothing (except for the opinions of some editors) that says schools are automatically notable. Just because high school articles are usually kept or redirected doesn't mean all high school articles should automatically be kept (hence the comparison to OTHERCRAPEXISTS). One other thing, nobody used to cite OUTCOMES in school related AFD's until about 2-3 months ago (while I was gone from Wikipedia), what happened? I have seen too many AFDs ruined by people saying "Keep per OUTCOMES" and not offering any actual reason to keep the article, these people don't seem to realize that school articles are not exempt from WP:N (a guideline, rather than just an opinion like OUTCOMES). TJ Spyke 05:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is built based on evidence of broad editor opinion on a wide range of articles in a substantial number of Articles put up for deletion. Despite the fact that it is those articles deemed "least notable" that are sent to AfD, the clear consensus in the overwhelming majority of such AfDs is that articles for high schools are notable. WP:OUTCOMES merely reflects that there is a clear majority consensus on this matter, as has been developed for places, highways and state-level elected officials. The notability of these articles has been proven over and over again, and WP:OUTCOMES aims to avoid wasted time by reflecting the overall community opinion on the issue. Alansohn 05:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that there is no proof of this so called consensus, and those other things you listed have guidelines in place establishing notability level. There is none for schools (there was an attempt at WP:SCHOOLS, but it failed to reach a consensus). That means that school articles have to pass policies and guidelines like WP:N, and opinions (and so-called consensus) do not trump guidelines and policies. TJ Spyke 05:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is built based on evidence of broad editor opinion on a wide range of articles in a substantial number of Articles put up for deletion. Despite the fact that it is those articles deemed "least notable" that are sent to AfD, the clear consensus in the overwhelming majority of such AfDs is that articles for high schools are notable. WP:OUTCOMES merely reflects that there is a clear majority consensus on this matter, as has been developed for places, highways and state-level elected officials. The notability of these articles has been proven over and over again, and WP:OUTCOMES aims to avoid wasted time by reflecting the overall community opinion on the issue. Alansohn 05:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a deep difference in your examples. There are guidelines that say places and highways are automatically notable. There is nothing (except for the opinions of some editors) that says schools are automatically notable. Just because high school articles are usually kept or redirected doesn't mean all high school articles should automatically be kept (hence the comparison to OTHERCRAPEXISTS). One other thing, nobody used to cite OUTCOMES in school related AFD's until about 2-3 months ago (while I was gone from Wikipedia), what happened? I have seen too many AFDs ruined by people saying "Keep per OUTCOMES" and not offering any actual reason to keep the article, these people don't seem to realize that school articles are not exempt from WP:N (a guideline, rather than just an opinion like OUTCOMES). TJ Spyke 05:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a deep and fundamental difference between WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OUTCOMES. All WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does is state that there happen to be other articles similar to the one in question that exist on Wikipedia. WP:OUTCOMES indicates that similar articles have been run through the Articles for Deletion gauntlet multiple times (for high schools, it's well into the hundreds), and the consistent result has been that these articles reach a consensus for retention. As with places, highways and state-level elected officials, consensus is that high schools are notable. This consensus demonstrated by the results of hundreds of such AfDs for high schools is an extremely meaningful guide for retention of this article and all other high school articles. Alansohn 04:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the burden of proof lies on those claiming an article to be notable. Also, citing OUTCOMES is like citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because some other high school article was kept doesn't mean all should. TJ Spyke 04:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am so sick of OUTCOMES being used as any sort of rationale. It has no authority, and is not a good gauge of consenus, and even if it was, it's still not important. There is nothing to show this a notable school, and thus should be deleted. i (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OUTCOMES is an excellent gauge of WP:CONSENSUS as it provides previous editors consensus on many very specific topics that aren't addressed by specific guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:CORP. --Oakshade 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous consensus, yes. But as consensus can change, citing only OUTCOMES means nothing. i (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When consensus changes, WP:OUTCOMES changes with it. --Oakshade 00:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And where is the proof that any of the statments on OUTCOMES are the general consensus? TJ Spyke 04:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Charging bad faith on the editors of WP:OUTCOMES are we? As you've been asked before, find one example of a high school article being deleted in the last six months. I know there have been something like 100 up for AfD (I keep close taps on this category) and I personally don't recall one. Even if there is one or two (which I doubt), WP:OUTCOMES would be correct as a vast majority, if not all, high school articles have been kept per WP:CONSENSUS. --Oakshade 05:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I supposed to manually check each AFD day? That would take over an hour. Anyways, just because other articles are kept is no reason to automatically keep another (that is covered at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have not assumed bad faith anywhere, I am stating that a good admin should listen to the arguments in THIS AFD, and the effects on other articles have no bearing on this one (see my previous sentence). TJ Spyke 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to attack the closing administrator for being "bad" if they follow consensus, fine. But the rest of us aren't going to make that attack. Since you value the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay (you cited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS above), then you should also be aware the same essay includes WP:That's only a guideline/essay, the very argument you are using to discount WP:OUTCOMES. --Oakshade 07:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you continue to accuse me of attacking anyone? You seem to be the onlyone attacking others and you the onlyone assuimg bad faith. OUTCOMES isn't even a full essay, it's just the opinions of those who wrote it based on what they think is the consensus of various subjects. People saying "Keep per OUTCOMES" are just saying "Keep because these people think that other similar articles are usually kept". If someone want to present an actual argument for keeping an article, that is something else. Something I have noticed on most of the school articles that get kept only do so because the AFD forced people to clean up the article, most have no claim of notability and are pretty bad when they get nominated. TJ Spyke 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article was kept because editors cleaned up and demonstrated that a topic is notable, then that article shouldn't have been nominated for AfD to begin since the nominator didn't properly research the topic (see WP:OSTRICH). If they were too lazy to do so, they should've placed a "clean-up" tag instead. --Oakshade 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is usually done. Some of those school articles had clean-up tags for MONTHS before being nominated. TJ Spyke 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article was kept because editors cleaned up and demonstrated that a topic is notable, then that article shouldn't have been nominated for AfD to begin since the nominator didn't properly research the topic (see WP:OSTRICH). If they were too lazy to do so, they should've placed a "clean-up" tag instead. --Oakshade 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you continue to accuse me of attacking anyone? You seem to be the onlyone attacking others and you the onlyone assuimg bad faith. OUTCOMES isn't even a full essay, it's just the opinions of those who wrote it based on what they think is the consensus of various subjects. People saying "Keep per OUTCOMES" are just saying "Keep because these people think that other similar articles are usually kept". If someone want to present an actual argument for keeping an article, that is something else. Something I have noticed on most of the school articles that get kept only do so because the AFD forced people to clean up the article, most have no claim of notability and are pretty bad when they get nominated. TJ Spyke 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to attack the closing administrator for being "bad" if they follow consensus, fine. But the rest of us aren't going to make that attack. Since you value the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay (you cited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS above), then you should also be aware the same essay includes WP:That's only a guideline/essay, the very argument you are using to discount WP:OUTCOMES. --Oakshade 07:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I supposed to manually check each AFD day? That would take over an hour. Anyways, just because other articles are kept is no reason to automatically keep another (that is covered at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have not assumed bad faith anywhere, I am stating that a good admin should listen to the arguments in THIS AFD, and the effects on other articles have no bearing on this one (see my previous sentence). TJ Spyke 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Charging bad faith on the editors of WP:OUTCOMES are we? As you've been asked before, find one example of a high school article being deleted in the last six months. I know there have been something like 100 up for AfD (I keep close taps on this category) and I personally don't recall one. Even if there is one or two (which I doubt), WP:OUTCOMES would be correct as a vast majority, if not all, high school articles have been kept per WP:CONSENSUS. --Oakshade 05:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Article makes specific claims of notability regarding sports championships won by the school, particularly in golf, accompanied with reliable sourcing. Accompanied by the strong consensus on retention of such articles with meaningful content and sources for high schools evidenced by WP:OUTCOMES, and based on the evidence provided, the article satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Additional sources are available based on searches, and once they are added, I will reconsider my vote. Alansohn 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the practical way to deal with high school articles. "Outcomes" is just as summary of what we usually do here, and almost no high school articles are now currently being deleted, except for copyvio. As for this school, it has won 6 athletic championships, and that is usually considered a sufficient factor in notability. DGG (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly unnotable schoolcruft. Delete. Eusebeus 14:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I prefer to err on side of being generous in defining "notable" Jacksinterweb 19:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.