Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Chisholm High School


 * 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.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Caroline Chisholm High School
nn high school Hirudo 19:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please put more effort into your nominations. "nn", which I assume here is intended as a stand-in for "non-notable", tells us nothing more than that you think the article should be deleted (we already know that, 'cos you nominated it!).  Consider explaining why the subject of the article is non-notable, or pointing to passages in the deletion policy that support your view. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong keep For better or worse, there is well-established consensus that "nn high school" is an oxymoron. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. What we have is no consensus to delete schools, not consensus that schools are notable or that schools are valuable.  However, the schools-are-inherently-worthy crowd are quite happy to flood AfD discussions with "keeps", while the schools-must-be-individually-notable crowd aren't willing to do the same when we clearly don't have the numbers. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well said (ESkog). -- JJay 04:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I like schools. They attract young editors who make valuable contributions to the site. -- JJay 19:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would really like to know your definition of "valuable". When I look at most school articles, I see substubs with little to merit them. Certainly, if people are coming looking for something of encyclopedic quality, they're going to go away disappointed. D e nni &#9775;  03:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, hello, it's you again. Thanks for affording me the opportunity to expand on my comments above. My dream is to see every English speaking kid in the entire world given the chance to add pertinent facts and pithy insights to a wikipedia article dedicated to their school. All contributions from these young scholars meet my definition of valuable, or even precious, for who better to contribute to school articles than the current inmates of those hallowed halls of learning? Wikipedia's higher calling is to encourage this participation, to stoke the intellectual fires of youth across the oceans. Yet, some of those articles, of necessity, will begin as stubs, or even sub-stubs. You must not view this as a cause of disappointment, but rather as an unavoidable consequence of Wikipedia's noble burden. My faith remains unshaken, though, that said stubs, with the passage of time, will form pearls that fully encapsulate the encyclopedic quality to warm the cockles of true blue wikipedians such as yourself. -- JJay 08:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I edited it for grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.113.67 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Schools stay in. Agnte 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep valid High Schools. &mdash; RJH 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion mentioned. CalJW 22:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Australian high school. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination looks like trolling. Ambi 01:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP ditto to basically everything. And while we're at it, what about an article on my old school:  Chisholm College, Braybrook!  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  03:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.


 * Speedy keep. There is no consensus to delete schools, and everybody knows it.  Continually nominating schools fosters bad feeling and prevents any worthwhile discussion from occurring while those participants who can still be bothered prepare to duke it out yet again. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per JJay. Cnwb 06:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or speedy keep if the nominator agrees to voluntarily remove this hurried nomination for deletion. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SCH, as it has sufficient information from independent reliable sources to meet content requirements for its own article (and there's sufficent info available to expand further). --Rob 09:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * k, n. (That's keep.) - David Gerard 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent and WP:SCH.Gateman1997 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I improved this article yesterday adding independently verifiable material as per WP:SCH. Capitalistroadster 03:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This article presents two pieces of information which set this school apart from the mass of non-notable schools. That is two more than most articles do. D e nni &#9775;  03:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please we should not have to be doing this anymore Yuckfoo 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - then don't do it. Seriously, enough people will vote keep, so if it bothers you so much, find something else to do that is productive around Wikipedia. Proto t c 15:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, close nomination as obvious consensus to keep. I'm sticking with the WP:SCH consensus on high schools, despite my own personal feelings. Proto t c 15:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yuckfoo is right, this nomination is a violation of the long standing precedent to keep articles about high schools.  Silensor 19:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Should the nominator, or anyone else for that matter, wish to review a complete and comprehensive archive of schools listed for deletion on the English Wikipedia from April 2005 to present, please visit User:GRider/Schoolwatch/Archive. Approximately 350 schools are listed in total between then and now, ranging from the elementary to university level.  Of those listed, not one single verifiable high school article has been deleted.  No need to pile on here with another keep, this article is doing well.  Bahn Mi 00:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And you are one of the editors who insist on adding substub after substub on schools for which absolutely nothing of note can be said. How about taking the time to write a few articles which say a great deal instead of a lot of articles which say nothing. D e nni &#9775;  01:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty generalized statement to make, not to mention a borderline personal attack. Keep it civil.  Silensor 01:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep per JJay and most of the keep comments above. Sarah Ewart 18:58, 21 December 2005 (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.