Talk:Covenant Christian High School (Indianapolis)/Archive 1

Students/alumni
A reminder to all that one generally should not be adding oneself into Wikipedia articles - see WP:COS. This is particularly true when the addition is not supported by a reliable secondary source. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Citation' I've added one now. I didn't create the article on me--I'm just keeping it from being orphaned by adding appropriate links. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The citation provided did not work. However, I would like to emphasize again that even if a citation is provided, this is not an edit that you should be making - the relevant guideline provides only limited exceptions, and "keeping [an article] from being orphaned" is not one. In general, unless there is a major BLP problem, editors should not be editing anything about themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, then how about you self-revert and add it yourself (with the correct URI of http://www.indianapolismonthly.com/features/king-of-corrections/ )? This is an example of where process is not serving to make the encyclopedia any better and this could all easily be avoided by you just adding the reference. It would be easier than this discussion is anyway. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this is an example of where process is helping the encyclopedia: I do not think the entry warrants inclusion, and I think if it were some other individual you might agree. This is part of why the guideline is in place - to avoid situations where an editor may not be able to be neutral. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you think my biography should be deleted. That's fine--I didn't create it nor did I weigh in on its two AfDs. But as long as it exists, it should be linked appropriately. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what I meant was that it should not be linked from this page - ie. the entry under Alumni does not warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think that alumni sections should be deleted from all schools? What's your reasoning here? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I just don't think everyone who happened to attend a school should be included in such sections. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Then who would be in this case? It's a small school that only has two notable alumni... —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The second alum seems a good candidate, but if what you say is correct it might make more sense not to have an alumni section at all - there's not much point to a six-word section. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still not getting at my question: why one but not the other? Schools routinely have links to articles about alumni. You're not offering any principle by which you would delete the article about me. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With the other individual, it is clearly notable that he attended this school, and multiple sources describe his involvement there. A passing mention in a source establishes the fact, but not the significance of it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

How is his high school clearly notable? He was famous as a college basketball player. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at his article, which discusses his high-school career extensively. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But a lot of university articles have lists of alumni and almost none of their articles have extensive sections on their studies. This is extra true for high schools. If you list alumni, then list them (especially if you only have two--omitting one is nonsense). And how do you suppose that the article on me keeps from being orphaned? What would link to it? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No university article lists every alumnus, or at least none should. Again, I think what might be the best approach here would be to remove the alumni section altogether, given its shortness with or without the second entry. Would that be amenable to you? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like an answer to my question but yes, I think the most logical thing would be to have an alumni section which lists both of us or delete it altogether. If you only have two articles, then deleting one is nonsense. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)