Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etobicoke Collegiate Institute

Etobicoke Collegiate Institute

Etobicoke Collegiate Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:ORG. Delete J 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as North American high schools are presumed notable, by precedent here at AfD, and by dicta of Jimbo Wales: Jimbo Wales on high school articles. This one seems big enough to be in per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian'sBooties 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC) P.S.. Also has many notable alumni. Needs cites. Bearian'sBooties 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC) P.P.S. has lots of provincial champs, for notability. Bearian'sBooties 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• reply I take no stand on this issue, except to note that the above arguement is doubly faulty: First of all, there is no statement that all High Schools are presumed notable. High Schools face the same burdens of proof as to their notability as do ANY OTHER single subject at Wikipedia. Secondly, the Jimbo quote provided (and it should be noted that Jimbo's one-off statements never trump consensus. Jimbo is very important, but his mailing list quotes are not Holy Scripture), does NOT give carte-blanche to create an article on every high school in existence. Indeed, it argues directly AGAINST that. The context for this quote from Jimbo is simply that each article is to be adjudged OF ITS OWN MERIT, not in relation to other articles. All he is saying is that PROPERLY WRITTEN AND REFERENCED articles about high schools should not be deleted EVEN IF crappy articles about high schools SHOULD BE deleted. It is a statement of the oft-cited arguement WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which again, means that you cannot argue the merits of an article in relation to other articles, ONLY in relation to established and accepted guidelines like WP:N. This article does not seem to meet the threshold of WP:N YET, and I would like to see some references provided before I make a decision on how I feel about it, however the above non-arguement does not seem a valid keep defense. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES which is merely precedent and because this one would pass WP:SCHOOLS if it had become a notability guideline, which it did not. Major urban high school age 75+ with numerous notable alumni and athletic championships. Tag for sources, move on. --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep regardless of one's view on the notability of all high schools in general. The list of distinguished alumni is quite sufficient. The purpose of schools is to produce them, and it is therefore relevant to notability, and not just a matter of inheritance. DGG (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Flaws are fixable. Yes, there needs to be a nudge into action, but I don't think that needs to be all the way to deletion. Also see WP:OUTCOMES. —C.Fred (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be a hole-in-the-wall school, but it is notable to lots of kids and alumni somewhere in Smallville. The article needs cleanup and work, though. Mindraker 10:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems their is no good reason for this delete.--Zingostar 19:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep needs better sources. 75+ year old high school counts for something towards notability. (Heck, my high school didn't even last ten years. Come to think of it, none of the schools or colleges I attended even exist anymore.)jonathon 01:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article makes strong claim of notability, above and beyond the consensus on notability for such schools documented at WP:OUTCOMES. Alansohn 05:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Article should be improved through regular editing per WP:AFD; hard to believe there aren't plenty of articles and references to school's activities, accomplishments and alumni. Benjiboi 02:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There does not appear to be a valid reason presented for deletion. See also: WP:OUTCOMES. Burntsauce 18:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)