Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinal Newman High School (Santa Rosa, California)


 * 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 of the debate was Keep per opinions beyond the usual reflexive school inclusionism - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal Newman High School (Santa Rosa, California)
This school is totally non-notable. Being one of the top 50 (!) Schools in one particular religion in one country is not notability. Stroika 09:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, although my vote will undoubtedly be swallowed up in a matter of a couple of days. For the sake of argument, I'll give my reason anyway: WP:SCHOOL is not a policy, schools are not inherently notable, and being "one of the top 50" is not sufficiently notable. Being named after a notable figure does not confer notability to something. --Coredesat 09:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Coredesat. Big sigh per subsequent discussion.  Tychocat 09:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - named after John Henry Cardinal Newman, Joe Montana's kids seem to go there and it's listed as an encyclopediac article in WikiProject Missing Articles so someone else seems to think it worth some paper. This unfortunately is the best I can find and it fails to inspire. Peripitus (Talk) 09:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Schools are not likely to be named after some nonentity. The mere fact that this school is named after Newman does not make it notable. Come on Peripitus, make that a delete, better yet a strong delete.--Stroika 09:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Catholic schools named after Newman are pretty much ubiquitous. --DaveG12345 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Srong Keep For one Joe Montana is a football coach there but also this school is a bit bigger/notable than the stub let on. It is actually two schools as I've just updated the article to reflect. Ursuline High School is it's other half. Netscott 09:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you show where the schools say their related ? Ursuline High looks ok but I can't find where either site says they're sub-schools of a larger one. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well for starters look at their addresses. Netscott 09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This page shows a bit more the linkage. I'm looking for another page or two. Netscott 09:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The other school doesn't seem to be notable, either. Even if it were, its notability wouldn't transfer over to this school. --Coredesat 09:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose Montgomery High School, Santa Rosa High School and Piner_High_School should be tagged for deletion as well because they are all about as notable as Cardinal Newman High School. Netscott 09:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * These Schools should probably be tagged as well. Netscott 10:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Begs the question. If we had proposed one those schools for deletion would you not know be arguing "well Cardinal Newman High has an article so we can't delete Montgomery High School/Santa Rosa High School/Piner_High_School"?--Stroika 10:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously, if you'd ask any student from any one of those schools I cited if their school was more "notable" than Cardinal Newman... 99 times out of 100 I'm sure you'd get a "no" answer. In the grand scheme of things none of these schools are exceptionally "notable". That is my point. Netscott 10:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So why are you opposing the deletion? Just because we have other articles about non-notable schools does not mean we should have this article about this non-notable school. --Stroika 10:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mostly because all of these schools form a sort of "pod" and this pod is notable. If one of the articles is to exist they all should exist. That's really my primary reason. Netscott 10:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) OK we'll delete them later, but first things first. This is the discussion page for the proposal to delete Cardinal Newman High School. Can you come up with any arguments as to why this school is notable? I repeat: your arguments so far beg the question.--Stroika 10:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Netscott you are editing your arguments (not just for typos) after they have been answered. This diff shows. It has the effect of making it look like I am not replying to what you said. Incidentally why is this pod notable. If it is notable why is there not an article for it?--Stroika 10:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Did my edit commentary say "typo" there? Please refrain from giving the appearance that my creditibiliy is in question. Netscott 10:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry edit conflict confused me.--Stroika 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My argument is for completeness. I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to track down how this school is notable outside of being part of the grouping I've mentioned but as part of a set of articles about related schools of equal notability from the same region it absolutely makes sense that it should not be deleted. Netscott 10:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information. Again I ask, why is this school notable? Why is this "pod" notable? Why is there not an article on the "pod" instead of on the schools in the "pod"? To put it another way, could your arguments not be used to defend any article whatsoever from deletion on the grounds of non-notability? Where will it end?--Stroika 10:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well prior to my editing it the Montgomery High School article already pointed to Cardinal Newman High School so your argument isn't holding up... due to the simple fact that a viable relationship between the two articles has been established. Your argument is largely hyperbolic. Netscott 10:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hyerbole is a figure of speech. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Hyperbole is acceptable in argument (although in this case it isn't hyperbole, it's reductio ad absurdum). You are begging the question and by definiuton a logical fallacy is not acceptable in argument. Again I ask, why is this school notable? Why is this "pod" notable. Does anyone else even use the term "pod" in this connection?--Stroika 10:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I love when others argue and rely upon fallacies while being fully aware of such a reliance. The Santa Rosa metropolitan area represents the largest Californian population center north of San Francisco therefore one of the principal reasons the pod (set) is notable is the fact that the combined student populations of the schools in the pod (set) represent the bulk of all high school students for Northern California north of San Francisco. In terms of student population Cardinal Newman High School is likely in the top 5 for all of northern California from Santa Rosa north (and surely in the top 10). Netscott 11:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Cardinal Newman High School notable? The bulk of the population of Northern California live on a street in Northern California, therefore (by your argument) ought there to be articles on every street in Northern California? If the pod is notable create an article for that. What is under discussion here is whether this article should be deleted. The reason cited to support deletion is that this school is not notable. What do you have to say to that? Mere membership of a supposedly notable group of schools does not make this school notable. (The US is notable, every US citizen is not notable). --Stroika 11:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, You've spurred me on to do some actual research. When you got the likes of Joe Montana not only helping to support (look for mention of his name and pictures of him) the high school attended by his two sons but additionally have him as junior varsity quarterbacks coach there and also have mention of that in places like Knoxville, Tennessee you've got a notable school. Netscott 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No that's notable information (perhaps) for the article on Joe Montana. Its not "the likes of Joe Montana" is it?. It is just Joe Montana. Remove Joe Montana and you have no notability for this school. Remove Prince William from Eton and Eton College is still notable. The interest of those news outlets is in Mr Montana, not his children, not in the school. I list some of the schools I think are notable here. Why should one guy's interest mean that this school deserves a full blown article? --Stroika 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not merely an interest, Joe Montana is actually coaching there. Netscott 14:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So what? Like I said, take him away and what have you got? Nothing. This information belongs if anywhere in the article for Joe Montana. This school is still not notable in and of itself. Therefore it doesn't deserve an article on wikipedia. Talk about the school please, not one (and it seems only to be one) famous parent.--Stroika 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again I ask, why is this school notable. Why is this "pod" notable?--Stroika 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as per my own nomination. I bet this is one of the top five schools on the Californian central coast with the word Cardinal in its name.--Stroika 09:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per original nomination and subsequent agreement. If the VC Fred Wilson is considered 'unnotable' enough not to be allowed his own entry on Wikipedia, then this school is in exactly the same boat. Isn't a 'pod' where you store your tunes? OnyxOnline 12:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've always been against having most high schools/secondary schools on Wikipedia, but for some reason others seem to feel they're inherently notable. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. No claim of notability offered up in article. High schools are not inherently notable. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being among the top 50 in a country as large as the US probably isn't to be sniffed at. Besides, I have no objection to subjects of interest only to a minority as long as they don't violate policy. David L Rattigan 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's misleading. It's not exactly right to say that it's one of the top 50 schools in the US, because it probably isn't in the top 50 of all High Schools of the US. The top 50 Catholic High Schools is a horse of a different color, because that's a far, far smaller category. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "top 50 high schools in the US" - I just said "top 50" as shorthand for "top 50 Catholic high schools", which I assumed (rightly or wrongly) would be apparent to anyone following the discussion. David L Rattigan 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreed with previous comment, top 50 catholic school is a very weak claim to fame. Pascal.Tesson 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly respectable article. Honbicot 16:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the respectability of the article is not in question. The notability of the subject is.--Stroika 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. All high schools are notable. TruthbringerToronto 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The first time I visited Wikipedia I looked up my school. Then I clicked on one of the links to an alumnus and amended it (this was long before I had an account). If there had been no article about the school I might never have visited Wikipedia again. Golfcam 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Question - What has that got to do with the merits of this article? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Linked with an American footballer I've heard of, and there are only about two of them. Olborne 17:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd never heard of him at all. Would that have been allowed as an argument? No obviously not and rightly so. Therefore I ask why is the fact that you have heard of him an argument for keeping this article?--Stroika 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; I find High Schools notable. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What is this magical quality that makes all High Schools/Secondary Schools notable? Please I want to see if I can find it elsewhere. Maybe I have it. (sotto voce) Maybe you do.--Stroika 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; I do not, and I find Coredesat's and Stroika's arguments convincing. -- Docether 19:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The students don't appear to be notable, the architecture (ie the building itself) doesn't appear to be notable, the teachers don't appear to be notable and just who (in the grand scale of things) is Joe Montana ??? If he really is so important, why don't we have a page which lists schools he went to, or a page of restaurants he's visited ??? It seems to me that the only argument for a keep is that he is a member of staff. Anyway this if this discussion goes on much longer he will have retired and the problem will resolve itself!! David Humphreys 19:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Something doesn't have to be policy in order to be cited.  Silensor 20:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, on the merits of the article itself. I have consistently said that schools are not inherently notable or encyclopedic. As a result, I have consistently said that school articles ought to be judged on their own merits: WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, and "precedent" is meaningless because stare decisis does not apply to wikipedia. However, I am also of the opinion that individual schools are capable of being notable and encyclopedic. In this case, there is an assertion of encyclopedic value (as outlined above and within the article itself), so on its own merits I chime in with my "keep". Agent 86 21:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I personly don't subscribe to the "schools are magic"-sentiment, but this passes my bar of notability, in fact it shines like a diamond in the depths of coal of the schoolcruft we have here at Wikipedia. -- E ivindt@c 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is better than the common run of schoolcruft surely that's all the more reason to delete this one and make it that much easier to delete the others when the time comes (which assuredly will)? (*begins to hum Dies Irae*)--Stroika 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't follow your reasoning, we should delete notable schools so we can delete non-notable school? Say what!? I stand by my comment, it's one of the top 50 catholic schools in the US, and Montana tips it just over the bar. -- E ivindt@c 10:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please keep this article as lots of people value it. Ramseystreet 22:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment to forestall more arguments of this type. But why oh why do so many people value this article? (Assuming they do which is not apparent from its edit history). Do they only value it because other people value it? What is so valuable about this article? Why does Cardinal Newman High School deserve an article?--Stroika 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Trying to reduce the hemorrhaging are we? Hehe. Netscott 00:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Coredsat and Stroika; if this was important someone would have explained why in the article, but they haven't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep High schools are generally considered notable anyway and this one seems to be more so than most. Ace of Sevens 23:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Angusmclellan. IMO, if there's a notable "pod" of schools, write the article on the pod, but not articles on every unnotable school in the thing. --DaveG12345 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is some bias, but I don't care for the random jumble of schools throughout the country that people seem intent on creating. The school is no more notable than a local company to me.  Kevin_b_er 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the top 50 Catholic schools in the US and Joe Montana coaches there. Seems to meet the tentative WP:SCHOOLS policy that we had. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wait a minute there's a policy on schools? Well that changes everything. Why didn't I think of looking for it? Let's all go to WP:SCHOOLS right now and see what we find.
 * "This proposal was rejected by the community. It is inactive but retained for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump."
 * Can't see anything about trying to revive discussion on AfD......--Stroika 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep high schools should be kept.--Konstable 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep again based on comment by Capitalistroadster. Sorry to sound like broken record here.  Yamaguchi先生 05:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Capitalistroadster makes very valid points... P.S. Stroika stop being a WP:DICK.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 11:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think that Stroika is being a dick. I think that you either misunderstand what AFD is for (debate, as it says at the very top of WP:AFD), or dislike hearing dissenting criticism. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with Kuzaar, WP:DICK doesn't apply here at all, but I do find Stroika's tendency to comment on nearly every keep vote as a bit peculiar. Netscott 13:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- Note that I agree that it does seem a bit overbearing, but not necessarily suspect or confrontative. I sometimes have the same bad habit in AFDs that I open. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment if his response to capitalistroadster above isnt a perfect example of being a dick, well then obviously our definitions of being a dick are incompatible.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. --Myles Long 15:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all high-school cruft! Per Coredesat. -- Koffieyahoo 06:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would love to see this expanded. Joe Montana part of the football program is just icing on the cake. --JJay 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep pretty obviously notable. --Rob 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep using a stretch from WP:MUSIC, in which a subject is notable if one member is notable, article meets notability. I would be on the fringe on a very weak keep, however, Joe Montona being a coach for the team, establishes notability. Yank  sox  01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentFrom WP:Music "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." This is appropriate material for Joe Montana's article. I draw your attention to the discussion between myself and Netscott above.  I don't blame Yanksox for missing it (and I don't claim it was definitive) but some people round here think that the whole thread should be taken as read . I don't claim it settled anything definitively but to save myself typing there it is. Probing too many arguments seems to provoke disgust among some editors. --Stroika 07:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly not disgust on my part but moreso puzzlement. Netscott 14:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do read the whole thread when an AfD comes my way, I've been here long enough to know that. I looked over the article and the statements that it made, and I do believe it should be kept (FYI, I do place my opinion for "Delete," on a few schools, check out the DRV on Arborview High School), it does make some claims of notability. Schools are put under a strange scope, and really that is the fact that it can make some sort of claim of being different from similar schools. About the WP:MUSIC comment, this AfD stood up because of that argument. The situation involving schools is getting really ugly, but I admit there is a slight lecinancy in favor of schools, but this article does present certain information that makes in stand out from the rest of it's own class. That is really how people should judge the scope of notability, how does this subject make itself different from other similiar subjects? Yank  sox  11:43, 1 July 2006 (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.