Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augusta High School (Kentucky)


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 23:45Z 

Augusta High School (Kentucky)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

User:209.209.140.19 has nominated this page and Augusta Independent Schools for deletion by adding the template to those pages, without actually specifying the reason on this page. The discussion on the Talk page indicates that the AfD is because the school board does not like the content in them, and would like to see the pages disappear. Vees 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not a valid reason to delete a good article. Vees 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The school does not want it on a public website. This should be put onto the school's website. (Aaronl23 19:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete-If both the school and the author (Aaronl23) do not want it on here, then it should be deleted. (Chickendog456 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment Chickendog456 has a total of one edit, and it's on this AfD page. Vees 14:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep School is notable, school and/or writer do not own the article. Changes made yesterday to the article should address the school's concerns anyway - it previously included an unencyclopaedic list of current school officials down to the level of PE teachers and subject aides. Orderinchaos78 06:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been presented. Content submitted to Wikipedia is licensed under the GDFL and need not be removed merely at the request of interested parties. Official policy states: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --N Shar 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well then delete it. Because from this point on any edits I plan on doing to this article, will be posted on another site. If I had known what I know now I would never have put this on this website. (Aaronl23 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete This article should be deleted. There is no reason why Wikipedia should not reserve the author's rights and the school's. (209.209.140.19 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment What if this was copy written content then? (Aaronl23 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment I believe that this may be in violation of copy right? And so what if that was my first edit? I rarely, if ever decide to edit and I also think this may be in violation of copy right. (Chickendog456 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep. If rewrites are needed, then rewrite, but deletion is not necessary for addressing editing concerns.  Is there an accusation of copyright violation?  I didn't see any of this content on the school's web page, but would be happy to see sources- any copyrighted material should of course be removed or rewritten, but that still doesn't require the deletion of the whole article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not on the school's website. It is a book called "History of Educational Institutions in Augusta, KY" written by W.H. Hanson. The book contains all of the article along with the superintendents and principals prior to 1977. The only thing that is not in violation is the facts section that shows the present athletics and other various things. (Chickendog456 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Reply to comment All copyrighted material should be deleted or rewritten and cited to that book, I agree- thanks for providing the source. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It might as well be deleted then because it is a bit of controversy. You are welcome, it took some digging to get to the bottom of this (Chickendog456 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep per User:Silensor/Schools reasonOo7565 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is quite interesting that this book ("History of Educational Institutions in Augusta, KY" written by W.H. Hanson" - searches by name or title), is not in any of the State of Kentucky's public libraries,, it is not in the Univ of KY database  it is not in the US Library of Congress Database , nor available at any of the major retailers.  I believe it would be beneficial to see proof that this book actually exists before anything is removed from the article.SkierRMH 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a local book. It is very clear that it would not be in print. Why would anyone want to read "History of Education Institutions in Augusta, KY" that would live in Hawaii? (209.209.140.19 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete, OR, possible copyright vio, nn. Nice pics, tho.  Edeans 00:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Such a book would be a small-press, local publication, so I remain neutral on the question of whether the book exists. Any user is welcome to edit the page, and copyright violations should certainly be rewritten and cited.  But none of that has anything to do with deletion- they're reasons to improve the article, not to delete it.  -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove all material claimed to be a copyright violation from the (actually) existing publication A history of educational institutions in Augusta, Kentucky, which appears to be a doctoral dissertation, written in 1952 at the University of Cincinnati.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because nobody's made an argument that I can buy for a reason to delete. Philippe Beaudette 04:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if we are going to have articles on high schools, and I guess we are, then this is as good as any. I see no reason why we should heed the school board.  We're not under their jurisdiction, and they have no right to control how they are viewed through outside sources.  What's next, Microsoft demanding we delete or edit their article?--Wehwalt 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep when we press that save button, we license our contributions to wikipedia. if the book is on google books, or someone will mail copies of the book to many libraries, we may be able to judge it as copyvio, but just because someone dislikes history, that doesn't mean it should disappear.DUBJAY04 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of good history Fotografico 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is lots of good information and pictures on these articles and it is one of the "better" school articles on Wikipedia. Hdt83 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * merge and stubbify but merge the two articles as 90% of the material repeats. The book is a MA Thesis from the University of Cinncinati, as listed in Dissertation Abstracts. it exists only at that University, and only in typescript; -- the record in the University of Cincinnati Library is http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/37660424?page=frame&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuclid.uc.edu%2Fsearch%2Fo37660424&title=University+of+Cincinnati&linktype=opac&detail=CIN%3AUniversity+of+Cincinnati%3AAcademicd.  I suggest going instead to http://uclid.uc.edu/ and searching for it. There is a discussion of whether to use manuscript sources on the WP:RS discussion page; for this, I do not consider it an RS, but more important it has been guessed that nobody will go to Cincinnati to check the manuscript copy against the aticle. It will be a nice example of how gullible we are at WP, because the style is very unlikely. Since the history does look interesting, a stub would be justified.
 * I understand why the author wants to remove it; he has presumably thought better of his copyvvio, and he should just admit it and let us get rid of the articles on that basis or merge and stubbify. I congratulate him on his ingenuity. DGG 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is a copyvio, delete without prejudice. In general, I would also suggest a delete, as much of the information appears to be vanity, indicating a run-of-the-mill institution with nothing that really stands out.  This is not, of course, to endorse the board's request.  Chris cheese whine 07:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to re-creation. I think Chris's reasoning is pretty much right, and it matches my own thoughts. Although the article is full of content, it seems to me that notability is neither asserted nor evident: though the school has a history, it is in practical terms no different from any of its peers. There is no reason for me, as an outsider, to regard this school as worth knowing about, and that's what notability is all about. WMMartin 19:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All schools are notable - even ones in Kentucky. Yuut 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as any "vanity" issues can be worked out through the collaborative editing process. Yamaguchi先生 07:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yamaguchi, etc. --Myles Long 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.