Talk:Ridgewood High School (Florida)

Insertion of Primarysources and Notability tags
The article survived the AfD, with an overwhelming majority of participants indicating that the article should be kept. The clear majority consensus is that the article is notable, and contains all the necessary references from reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy claims of notability. Immediately after the AfD was completed, Primarysources and Notability tags were added to the article. As the AfD for the article was closed as a Keep, that should be prima facie evidence that notability has been met and sources have been provided. The article that survived AfD had 14 sources, only one of which was from the school itself. Everyone of the 13 other sources is from a reliable and verifiable secondary source, by definition independent and unconnected with the school itself. I find it hard to understand what the issues are, but no explanation whatsoever has been provided to explain why we should be revisiting issues settled minutes before. As indicated in the AfD, concerns were raised that the article does not meet the notability standards required by WP:SCHOOL. The article makes several explicit claims of notability for the school, in full compliance with WP:SCHOOL. Unless there are legitimate issues being raised -- and I unfortunately must question whether these tags were applied in good faith -- I would sincerely hope that the user inquestion will accept the majority consensus and move on. Alansohn 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The only section with sources unaffiliated with the school is the sports section. No other part of the article has independent sources. The AfD keeps the article on Wikipedia, to admit of reliable sources being added. Wikipedia articles need to be substantiated reliable sources, and if those sources are not added, the article will eventually be deleted. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know or understand what issue you have with this article, but you are creating requirements that are completely non-existent. I don't know what problem prevents you're seeing the fact that there are thirteen separate references, each one of which comes from independent reliable and verifiable secondary sources. The AfD demonstrates that there is a clear consensus that this article meets any and all Wikipedia standards for notability and sources. I agree with your statement "Wikipedia articles need to be substantiated reliable sources, and if those sources are not added, the article will eventually be deleted." The problem is that this article meets every aspect of the standard and yet you still won't give up. Please raise a specific issue or move on to something else. There are hundreds of thousands of articles that have no sources. Find one (or maybe even two) of those articles and work up your magic, where there might be some benefit. Even better, why not spend some time improving articles that you find deficient by your own arbitrary standards, rather than trying to destroy articles that meet all requisite criteria. Alansohn 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * None of those independent sources are outside of the Sports section, and you should read Notability. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop this already. I've read WP:Notability. The people who participated in the AfD read WP:Notability. Our consensus was that this article meetsWP:Notability and that it provides ample references that meet WP:RS and WP:V. Why do refuse to accept this? Part of working as a group on an encyclopedia is to realize that even your best-intentioned opinions may not be accepted by the group as a whole. This is what happened in this AfD, in which your peculiar interpretations were resoundingly rejected. Please read WP:Consensus and please find something else to busy yourself with. Your efforts to try to imply that there is an issue here, when they have been addressed by the AfD, are entirely counterproductive. Alansohn 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources on any non-sports part of the article. That is quite clear. The School symbols and Learning community sections don't appear to have any sources at all. Are they hidden away somewhere in the website, or how do you know they are even true? —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources have been added to meet your demands. Verify away, my dear. Alansohn 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't third-party sources. Everything except the sports section is just links to the schools website. Please read Reliable sources and Notability. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni
Can we please only list Alumni in this section with actual credibility and a developed career rather than people who have graduated less than a few years and may be at the start of a good career but have gained no public notoriety. Let's be resonable especially compared to the others listed in this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Incepta4 (talk • contribs).

Agreed. Editing to that effect now. Justinthebull (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Make a no-bullshit entry about the school. When I went there (graduated in 2005) Sub-par teachers were in proliferation and horrific children attend aforementioned school, and the entire graduating class of 2005 is noted for a high "oops pregnancy" rate and low success rate in personal as well as professional life. Let it also be noted how cliquish the place is, and the high rate of teens who are scarred for life, having attended the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rams2005 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about no. How about we keep petty, juvenile gripes off of Wikipedia.  I'm a RHS grad, too, and I hated the place, but you don't see me (or anyone else) clamoring to add a bunch of histrionic drivel based on personal grudges. Memphisheel (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed all  alumni whose references are questionable, unverifiable, not  WP:RS, and that  do not  necessarily  assert sufficient notability  of the subject. Unless perfectly  substantiated, and a high  level of notability  is proven, they  must  not  be restored. Editors are advised that unconstructive additions may  be considered as disruptive editing and even vandalism, and can result  in  an immediate editing  block.--Kudpung (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto my  message above. More additions removed today  and page protected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2012
Under the academics section, please include that Ridgewood's Odyssey of the Mind team won both the Ranatra Fusca creativity award and the OMER award at the regional competition, taking home the most awards of any high school in attendance.

Trongsin (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  08:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ridgewood High School (Florida). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007154657/http://www.fhsaa.org/records/rec_sb.pdf to http://www.fhsaa.org/records/rec_sb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)