Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clayton Middle/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 was, almost reluctantly, no consensus. Reading this was actually a pain, with the keep side and the delete side just attacking each other. Here are the facts:

1. NEITHER side bothering to fix the article until Noroton did on the 5th day. This means that I had to give more weight to conversation afterward.

2. Do the references pass notability? It depends how much a high school needs to show in its article to be notable. Certainly there's less needed than in elementary schools. It passes sourcing, but does it pass notability? I don't know.

3. Is AfD'ing an article 3 minutes after creation in bad faith? Yes. Is whining about it and subsequently leaving the article in that shape also acting in bad faith? Yes.

4. In terms of arguments, the delete side was slightly stronger, but I'm reluctant to go either way on this due to all the civility problems.

What this needs most of all is a cool-down period and possibly a new AfD nomination a month or so down the road, since it was fixed up so late. I'm disappointed by both sides though.-- Wizardman 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Clayton Middle/High School

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

NN middle school/high school, recreated after prod. Morgan Wick 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The nominator seems to be laboring under the misconception that this is a middle school. It is a combined middle AND high school. As the AfD was created within a mere three minutes of the article's creation, without any opportunity provided to expand the article beyond a stub, it would seem that this nomination is in staggeringly bad faith. Alansohn 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Additional material added to establish notability addresses any and all issues raised by teh nominator and by those who have voted to delete the article, despite the rapid-fire nomination. Alansohn 16:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't see any notability. Semantic debates and (considering the prod) timing issues have nothing to do with it. Morgan Wick 04:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was created and then nominated three minutes later. There's semantics and then there's a display of bad faith. The apparent failure to look at the article, as evidenced by the hasty correction of the nomination, seems to be further evidence of bad faith. Alansohn 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What sort of "bad faith" could possibly be involved? I didn't even see the earlier version of the article. Morgan Wick 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You need some reasons why starting an AfD three minutes after an article was created is in bad faith? Let's take a look at New pages patrol and tick off a few problems: 1) "Special:Newpages logs new pages as they are created. It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author."; 2) "Improving new pages: Style problems. First, try to fix any style problems yourself. If you cannot, add one or more specific cleanup tags for pages which need tidying up. In particular, the following tags are common:... -- for articles that conspicuously lack references."; 3) "Articles without sources The best time to ask for sources is when an article is fresh and the contributor is still around to ask about the origin of the information in it. Tag articles with  and let the contributor know with , or try to find some yourself. If there aren't any, it might need to be deleted." Note that article "might need to be deleted" only after legitimate attempts have been made to obtain sources.; 4) "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days." There is a well-defined process for handling new articles. Read and learn. Alansohn 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep. This article obviously fails in its revised form now satisfies WP:N due to multiple, nontrivial as notability is not even asserted, so it should be speedied, and it fails WP:V as none of the asserted facts are cited to reliable sources.  Also, could we please try to assume good faith and lay off the bullying and rhetoric?  This is a place to discuss content, not other users.  Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When an editor nominates an article for deletion three minutes after creation of a stub, there is simply no time to add the sources necessary to establish notability. This AfD is some of the most shameless bad faith I've seen. Alansohn 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you had five days before that to establish notability, as this page existed before, was prodded, and was deleted. And you knew that. Evidently the five days that the prod was up wasn't enough for you either, or else it wouldn't have been deleted. And even if it hadn't been sourced, could you have at least tried to assert notability? On Wikipedia, we tag pages for speedy deletion and prod them the instant they're created (I could cite a gazillion examples but they tend to be, well, deleted); I see no reason why AfD should be any different. Don't use a long series of edits to get an article to the state you want it in; use the Preview function if need be. You better be ready to defend it the instant you create it. Morgan Wick 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not know that. If you had ever created an article here on Wikipedia, You would know that's not the case. This article wasn't prod'ed. You clearly hadn't even read the article and nominated it for deletion three minutes after creation. You could have tried to wait a few minutes more, but you failed to do so. When you nominate an article you have to be prepared to justify your actions and you have utterly failed to do so. Three minutes is shameless. Alansohn 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This version was never prod'd, but a prior version was. And you knew, at the very least, the article had existed before and been deleted, because when you recreated it it was with an edit summary of "recreate article", as I've already cited before. Now, I think you might have a better chance at getting your "time" to establish notability (which, again, YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE BEFORE YOU (RE)CREATED THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE - you actually have all the time in the world to write an article to your standards before you send it in, did you know that?) if you actually, I don't know, ESTABLISH it (you do have another 5 days, this isn't speedy, sheesh) instead of questioning my faith when even a cursory glance at the facts causes your argument to fall apart. Morgan Wick 05:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:CIVIL.  That's all I'm going to say. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and bulk up High Schools are inherently notable as are all towns and cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
 * There is no consensus that high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by their frequent deletion at AfD. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting an article up for deletion three minutes after creation is inherently uncivil. Alansohn 06:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not that is true, it doesn't excuse others from compliance with WP:CIVIL. And some might argue that it is inherently uncivil for an experienced editor to post an article that obviously does not comply with WP:N and WP:V, to the point where speedy deletion is appropriate. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that in WP:CIVIL? I'm sure the many newpage patrollers that tag pages for speedy deletion or prodding within one minute after creation would love to know that they've been "inherently uncivil". And I hope you removed my comments unintentionally, instead of trying to prove a point by doing so. Morgan Wick 06:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You still refuse to justify your utterly uncivil actions. You put up for deletion an article that you clearly never read, as you have had to do research to correct your inaccurate nomination and come up with rationalizations after the fact to justify why you had created this AfD. Was the nomination unintentional, perhaps? The fact that other individuals are even less civil than you are does not justify putting up an article for deletion three minutes after creation. Alansohn 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, AfD nominations are rather complex and involved for them to be made "unintentionally". You keep resorting to ad hominem attacks (and demonstrating your complete unfamiliarity with Wikipedia deletion process) instead of actually demonstrating the subject's notability. The entire text of the article, aside from a listing of the administration and some external links, is "Clayton High School are a comprehensive community public high school that serves students in ninth through twelfth grades from Clayton, in Gloucester County, New Jersey, United States, as part of the Clayton Public Schools." That doesn't sound like it's more notable than any other high school. Now, you have a choice. You can demonstrate why the subject of this article is notable and deserves to have a Wikipedia article, or at least why you felt it deserved one (because surely you would never create an article if you didn't think it belonged in Wikipedia, being the experienced, dating-to-2005 editor you are, right?) or you can continue questioning my motives on incredibly shaky grounds. Morgan Wick 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, a few random examples of articles tagged for speedy or prod within five minutes or less of creation, most of which might not survive for you to see them: (admittedly by me)       ...need I go on? Morgan Wick 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I will: . Morgan Wick 07:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless non-trivial coverage or reliable sources documenting multiple notable alumni can be found. Also regarding the timing of the AfD: sources are not an afterthought which you go looking for a few days after you've created an article, they should be used for every single fact you put into the article in the first place starting from the first edit. Articles which lack sources and assertions of notability not only run the risk of being put up for AfD quickly, they run the risk of getting immediately speedily deleted. cab 10:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I've been trying to tell this guy. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - The article should be merged into a more encompassing article on the school district. See  Wyoming Area for an example.   Plm 209 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: as failing WP:V, WP:NN. At very first glance I was going to agree (rare as that is) with Alansohn that AfDing a high school article three minutes after creation is indeed obnoxious.  I'm afraid my view's flipped 180 degrees when I see that Alansohn recreated a deleted article.  He is no rookie, and should know better both to recreate a deleted article as an unreferenced stub almost entirely lacking in content, and to keep on hammering on the three minutes point knowing full well that the article had far longer than that to be sourced and receive more than barebones content.  While we're citing rules, how about the one that it is up to the editors who want to save a threatened article to provide proper sourcing and content?    Ravenswing  13:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: I did not know the previous article existed, and I did know it had been deleted. In response to a request from a new user, I created the article, with the indication that the user had committed to expand the article with addition material as he has done for dozens of other school articles. I only discovered that the article had been deleted when I clicked on "edit" and saw a mention that an earlier article had been deleted. I have no idea what was (or was not) in this earlier article and had no expectation that the article would stay as a stub for long. While it is possible to create an article as a user page and then make it a regular page after the article has been improved to meet the demands of the instant deleters, it is far more difficult to collaborate with other Wikipedia editors in this manner. I'd love to create fully-formed Featured Article candidates as new articles, but any non-rookie editor would know that that is not the case. 99.99% of the best articles on Wikipedia start as stubs. Featured Article Buckingham Palace began with seven words. While Clayton Middle/High School is no Buckingham Palace, three minutes is simply an unreasonable and unjustifiable period of time in which to create a fully-formed article. Alansohn 13:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You go tell that guy he can create his own new articles. And that's the sort of thing you should have said at the very start of this debate, or at least when I brought up that the article was deleted before, so you didn't come off as uncivil and skirting the issues I was raising. I'm a bit skeptical we should be creating articles for new users at all, certainly when we don't know why we should (if you wouldn't vote for it on an AfD you shouldn't create it for them), but I'm baffled why those people don't make that clear at the start when those pages are inevitably listed on AfD. I don't expect articles to be fully-formed featured articles at creation, but a good stub article should have at least a claim to notability, while this has none. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Stop already with the 3 minutes. From the time it was nominated until right now has been over 12 hours.  Instead of sitting on the AfD hitting refresh to every reply, get some reliable sources and improve the article to keep it (although I highly doubt this Middle/High School is notable anyways -- listing links to the homepage of the school does not count for notability).  This article will NEVER survive if you just sit here arguing, without backing up your claim.  If you just recreated it for a different user, then it should be on them to assert it's notability, but since you have been arguing over 12 hours on this, you apparantly have some sort of interest in the article.  Get in gear and work on the article instead of going back and forth and accomplishing nothing. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 15:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: A system that places a gun at the head of any individual creating an article by allowing creation of an AfD within three minutes is unjustifiable. The individual who requested the article has been adding sources and other material demonstrating notability to area schools and noticed that this article didn't exist. The burden is on the user who asked for this article to establish notability. I don't blame the newbie who requested the article for backing away from this inherently destructive process and the abusive editors who won't tolerate a stub. Where are these perfect articles supposed to sprout from in under three minutes? What is your interest in deleting this article? Alansohn 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My intent? How about keeping crap off of wikipedia when I see it?  Having to argue with you is a waste of my time, and I refuse to do it any longer.  Either assert it's notability by providing WP:RS or it's going to be deleted, simple as that.  You repeatedly doing this non-sense about 3 minutes is complete absurdity.  I don't care if it was nominated .00000000001 seconds after creation.  It must be NOTABLE to stay in Wiki.  Assert the notability.  Prove it should stay.  If you reply again with your same nonsense, it will just show you are not able to assert notability, and just wasting everyone's time. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:N is not part of the Afd deletion criteria. - T-75| talk | contribs  16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as another nn school. Eusebeus 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not a Wikipedia expert so I don't know how to use those WP:xx reasons every one seems to be giving, but here's what I can say: There is no reason to put this article up for deletion yet. As Alansohn has said repeatedly, it was only up for three minutes. Give me a break. High schools are important entities that should be included in Wikipedia because many of them, especially in South Jersey (an old and historic part of the US), have deep roots with their respective towns and are rich in tradition and history. If anyone looks at the edits I'VE made since I first started using Wikipedia it won't take them long to see that I'm obviously a Woodbury resident and that I have a vested interest in both the town's page as well as its  high school's page. But, one will also see that I frequently edit and contribute to MANY South Jersey high schools' pages (ask Alansohn). If Clayton Middle/High School were to be kept up, I promise that I will add anything relevant or useful to it as time progresses, just like I've done with other schools. I can't promise a long, extensive write-up on it right away, but I (as well as other future contributors) will definitely be adding to it. Keep this article to let it grow! Nothing starts out immediately perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcla2 (talk • contribs)
 * It would really help if you started doing that now, while the AfD is still going. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no claims of notability, should have been speedy deleted per the CSD rules about non-notable organizations (Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content). Alansohn is being disingenuous by trying to claim that the article was only up for three minutes when it had to have been on PROD for five days before it was deleted, and he knew it had been here before since his creation edit summary said recreation.  Regardless of the semantics of who is or is not being civil, the fact of the matter is that Alansohn would rather argue about the merits of the nomination rather than the merits of the article and its subject.  Until reliable sources are produced that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill school, it should be deleted.  Corvus cornix 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alansohn has already spoken for himself on some of those points above, under Ravenswing's comment. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the "new editor" had been here 7 months and had over 400 edits. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, I have. But I never studied the wiki how-to's or sat down to learn an in-depth understanding of everything. I basically know how to edit, upload pictures and create links. And most of that I learned through trial and error. In regards to the 400+ edits, most of them are minor touch-ups or one-line links, it's not like I was sitting there writing paragraphs for 400 edits.
 * 400 edits is a fairly slow week for many editors; spread out over seven months it's a very small body of work to be promoted past a newbie. A review of the user's edit history, which (as I read it) shows that he has never created a new article, a read of the individual's request and of his comments above, should help wipe off the uncivil tone of the "new editor" remarks. Alansohn 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mm, it's the old trial lawyers' adage: if your client is unpleasant, argue the fine points of the law; if the facts are against you, argue pathos and human factors.    Ravenswing  17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And when that doesn't work, start slinging insults with self-righteous truculence. Eusebeus 18:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As the saying goes, if the facts are against you, pound the law. If the law is against you, pound the facts.  If the facts and the law are against you, pound the table. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And when you have absolutely nothing to say, quote trite, but meaningless, adages. No facts, no law. I assume that's why all of you are pounding the table? Alansohn 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That glove's a bit small on me. Perhaps you should try it on? --Butseriouslyfolks 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And when you have absolutely nothing to say a second time, quote trite, but meaningless, adages. No facts, no law. I assume that's why all of you are pounding the table and pulling on the gloves? How about addressing the New pages patrol listed up top. while you're working on witty ripostes. Alansohn 21:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing to say? You're missing a good AfD. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you have to admire the tenacity despite the vacuity. Let's wait for the "votes" to be declared invalid next.... Eusebeus 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the ability to ignore multiple violations of New pages patrol that I find most impressive. The silence on these multiple violations speaks volumes. Alansohn 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get excited. We just don't think it applies. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a pathetic joke? Why should anyone else observe Wikipedia policy if all one needs to do is wave it off with an excuse of "We just don't think it applies"? Alansohn 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstood. We're not rushing to explain the perceived NPP vios because we don't agree with your position that those guidelines apply to this situation.  You might as well ask us to explain all of the WP:TPG violations, then dance about giddily when the resulting silence speaks volumes. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The nominator is a new page patroller. The New pages patrol lays out clear policy for how new pages are to be handled. These rules were violated. Which part doesn't apply? For which situation do they apply and why don't they apply here? Putting an article up for AfD three minutes after creation is inexcusable and inherently uncivil. Excusing the violations doesn't help. Alansohn 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Y'know, I've just looked over this WP:NPP a couple times now, and for the life of me, I can't find a single sentence referencing this checklist as being a "policy" or "rules" for which one can claim "violations" (I did note that the entire first paragraph explicitly pertains to not biting newcomers, which tends to suggest that the stroking of veteran editors' sensibilities wasn't foremost in the minds of the author/s). Could you kindly point me to the section of that page which does proclaim WP:NPP to be policy, or to a section anywhere enacting a time frame within which filing an AfD is prima facie uncivil, failing any other consideration?  Thanks.    Ravenswing  07:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Y'know, the nominator's proudly proclaims himself as a member of the New pages patrol and seems to take some delight and pride in being an active member. While I have rather low expectations of other individuals (which have been met with great frequency), the nominator does not abide by the rules, policies and procedures he himself has adopted. It is these violations that are prima facie uncivil. Alansohn 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What? When did WP:NPP become a sacred fraternity with initiation rites and contracts? I thought "The patrol is entirely voluntary and carries no obligation," but maybe I imagined that part of WP:NPP. Anyone can flip through Special:Newpages and look for articles in need of improvement or tagging for deletion, and consider themselves new-pages patrollers. Do I need to cite a more current round of examples of pages nominated for speedy or prod within five minutes of creation? Morgan Wick 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a speedy deletion candidate. Speedy deletion criteria do not cover schools, which are not really organisations. People are too fond of pushing speedy deletion without realising that it doesn't cover every class of article (or maybe trying to fool the rest of us into thinking it does). This criterion is intended to cover such things as fan clubs, university societies and minor pressure and political groups, not edifices such as schools. -- Necrothesp 22:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Clayton Public Schools. Then set up redirects for this and Clayton Middle School and at Clayton High School (a disambig page), just in case someone wants to create stubs for those as well.  Too short a stub, extremely unlikely to be expanded to a good article with so little notability.  Little to nothing notable per WP:SCHOOL (athletics, academics, location, design, alumni, facilities, news reports, other accomplishments, etc.).  Ranked 219th out of 356 schools - therefore notable(?) for being in the bottom third of their class?  Seriously now, you want people to know this?  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm T-dot, sounds to me like I'd be "promoting" Clayton High School if I were to knowingly leave out a FACT that doesn't represent the school well. Just because they're in the bottom third in the state doesn't mean that it's not something that can't go on Wikipedia. Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of this website to include all human knowledge about every possible subject, regardless of if it's a positive or negative fact? Like I said, give this page time and you'll see the good appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcla2 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, the point of this website is not to include all knowledge. It's supposed to be a digital analog (pun intended) of an encyclopedia, so it's supposed to be a good overview that could be used as a reference.  It's not supposed to be comprehensive.  I know you've been here a while, but I don't think I'm out of line in asking you to read through WP:WWIN for some categories of knowledge that are inappropriate for posting at Wikipedia.  As for the specific example here, if the school were notable for being low quality, that might warrant a mention, and it might be POV pushing to omit that fact.  But I don't think either the school or its ranking are sufficiently notable for inclusion here.  If a school was consistently ranked last (or close to last), and that fact was picked up and discussed in a nontrivial manner by newspapers or other published sources, both the school and its ranking would probably be notable. Hope that helps. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my point was that the only in-situ claim for notability, other than perhaps the short list of non-notable executive staff members, is that the school is essentially in the bottom third in the state. This is not particularly inherently notable, either for grandiose goodness or blithering badness, which notability in a school might require.  Perhaps if it was DEAD LAST out of 356 schools - now that might be entertaining for the world to see.  Anyway, although you raise a great point, I don't see selectively including or excluding the "School Digger" ranking statistics as particularly POV - unless perhaps someone from the rival school across town and ranked in the top 5% was posting it to make a point after losing to them in a baseball game or something.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above discussion.-- trey  19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--Svetovid 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp 00:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, solid reasons Necro. Good work. -jrcla2


 * Close this AfD without prejudice, tag for notability, and give the author, and others, a reasonable chance to improve it before relisting. Come on, 3 minutes before opening an AfD for a school article! What's the hurry? Dhaluza 17:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Certainly those advocating Keep feel no hurry. It's been three days now, and the article still hasn't budged a jot.  The previous version hadn't budged from an empty stub either.    Ravenswing  17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hindsight is 20-20, but Morgan Wick's nom sure looks spot on now. How prescient! --Butseriouslyfolks 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but when exactly did WP become a contest with winners and losers and time limits? I thought a wiki was supposed to be a collaborative process, where people help each other to create something greater than the sum of its separate parts. Silly me. What's the problem with sticking a notability tag on this, and helping the author understand what is expected. It's not hard to see why people may give up on editing articles when the hungry vultures are circling waiting for unwitting victims they can pounce on. Dhaluza 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent points, Dhaluza. Perspective, people! --Butseriouslyfolks 16:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your rationalization acknowledges that the nomination was improper and that it is only via "hindsight" that the multiple WP:New pages patrol violations can be "justified", and that otherwise it would be improper. I wouldn't blame anyone for being reluctant to try to improve an article in the face of a refusal to acknowledge the impropriety and inherent incivility of nominating an article three minutes after creation. After the pack has moved on to another kill, there will be ample time to recreate the article to meet the consensus standards of notability. Alansohn 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you announce in advance that you plan to violate the rules and recreate a deleted article? While I shan't address the contradiction inherent in loudly proclaiming the inviolability of a custom while trampling over black-letter policy, to refuse to improve an article while an AfD is underway only to claim that you'll do so when "backs are turned" is nothing short of petulance.  This is neither a playground or a schoolyard, and we're out of elementary school.  It is no bullying to ask for proper sourcing for articles -- that is what AfD is bloody about in the first place -- nor yet to suggest that doing so is a more proper way to save an article than whining about the unfairness of it all.  We wouldn't swallow that from a SPA newbie; why do you think it is any more attractive behavior from a veteran?    Ravenswing  05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I especially love how his accusing me and others of rationalizing away "violations" of something that isn't even a guideline is itself a way of rationalizing away the fact that he created an article on the suggestion of another user without knowing a thing about it, including whether it was notable. Morgan Wick 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to the article. There are some problems with the article, and, personally, I don't care how they get corrected as long as they do get corrected, but the article cannot really be kept until they are. So it would seem that the best time is here and now.  The 2 problems are that first, only directory information is given, and we do not keep articles about subjects unless there is  something notable. Typically a high school has an involvement with the community, some notable sports teams, some notable alumni. Generally there is something worth saying about how & when the school was built. But there has to be more than student & teacher count & building size & names of the staff. The second problem is that there needs to be sources to show that the notability is recognized outside the immediate community. One or two good newspaper articles from more than the town paper are want is usual.
 * If the 2 requirements are met, the article will be kept. If they are not, it won't be. If they can't be met now, the article can be re-created when the information is available. But there is no point in re-creating it without the necessary additional material, for it will be quickly deleted. People keep track, and notice.

There is a good deal wrong with the speed at which articles can get removed, and suggestions for how to do better are always welcome. But there isn't any actual harm here, because as it is the article cannot really be kept, & it doesn't seem you have the material at hand. So either find the material now, or find it later, or most likely of all add a little to the section for the school on the Clayton Public Schools article, and expand into a separate article when ready. Everyone will be glad to see a good article.DGG 06:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Number one, articles about high schools are not unusual. Nearly every person of note in this world graduated from a high school, and nearly every city on Earth has a senior high school that is an important part of its community.  The deletor appears to have had some "issues" with the author even before this discussion began, and I don't think that's a reason for deletion.  I agree that it's kind of weird that the article was deleted, and then recommended for deletion as soon as it was posted again.  It's either an incredible coincidence, or somebody was waiting.   I don't like that type of practice.  If the article needs to be fixed up, fix it up-- there's no 12 day deadline or whatever to perfect an article. Mandsford 23:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What? What "issues"? I hadn't even encountered this guy before. The only reason Alansohn was screaming "bad faith!" earlier in this discussion was because he found some errors in its initial listing and thought "oh, he must just be out to get me!" Take a look at User talk:Jrcla2 where he calls me "some jerk" - I doubt he'd use that exact wording if he'd had problems with me before. Morgan Wick 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is the nominator's 15th response in this discussion. When one presupposes to bulldoze someone else's house, one should expect some opposition from the builder.  At this point, you have written more words in defense of your original nomination... than had ever been written about the Clayton Middle/High School.  Suggestion: change title to "Clayton High School" (as it's referred to in the press, and mention that it has a middle school as well).Mandsford 12:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have no idea who the nominator is or was, nor have I ever knowingly dealt with this individual in any other context. The only reason I am screaming bad faith is because the nomination -- submitted within three minutes of creation of the article -- was made in inherent bad faith, in violation of the protocols and guidelines of the WP:New pages patrol the nominator so proudly participates in. The nominator has steadfastly refused to consider the possibility that it was his failure to follow the rules he has signed up for -- which explicitly dictate that an appropriate amount of time should be allowed to improve an article before trying to destroy it and that efforts should be made to help improve the article -- that have created this problem. If your house were surrounded by a pack of bulldozer operators threatening to knock down your house, would you start building a second and third floor, in the hope that the pack will leave you alone, or would you just walk away and start anew after the bulldozers move on to knock down houses in some other neighborhood? I know what I would do. Alansohn 15:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're a builder whose house is about to be destroyed, do you appeal to the bulldozing company about the family that will be displaced from the house and the historical nature of the house, or do you make baseless charges that the bulldozing company is out to get you and didn't follow a process that isn't law and that no one follows anyway? (Okay, so some people might actually do the second part, but which will net you more favorable coverage on the local news?) Morgan Wick 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not only are all high schools inherently notable because of the wealth of independent information that high schools inevitably generate in their local community, but this appears to be an inappropriate nomination (which is not a comment on the motives of the nominator). It's ironic that more work (and certainly more emotion) has gone into this discussion than into the article itself. Noroton 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are several of us now who have made exactly that point.   Ravenswing  14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: WOW! Another convert to the "all high schools are notable" side who agrees that this nomination was inappropriate. Congratulations, RG! Alansohn 15:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, a convert to the premise that you have (a) repeatedly been called upon, in vain, to point out where WP:NPP is declared to be policy; (b) repeatedly been the subject of a suggestion that your energies can and should have been directed to sourcing the article; and (c) that for someone who here as elsewhere repeatedly waves the bad faith flag, it is no less than hypocritical to claim (as you did in your most recent edit summary) in breach of WP:AGF that Delete voters would not change their positions even were the article to be properly sourced. I for one would, and have in the past on school AfDs when proper sourcing arrived.  I'd review WP:OWN were I you; there are no "enemies" here, people who disagree with you aren't packs of rabid dogs, and this isn't (in theory, anyway) an adversarial process.    Ravenswing  15:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed to WP:OWN this article; As stated repeatedly above, it was created at the request of another user who had planned on expanding the article, but didn't have a chance to do so within the alloted three minutes. New pages patrol lays out a rather clear policy for addressing potentially non-notable articles. A few highlughts include 1) "Special:Newpages logs new pages as they are created. It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author."; 2) "Improving new pages: Style problems. First, try to fix any style problems yourself. If you cannot, add one or more specific cleanup tags for pages which need tidying up. In particular, the following tags are common:... -- for articles that conspicuously lack references."; 3) "Articles without sources The best time to ask for sources is when an article is fresh and the contributor is still around to ask about the origin of the information in it. Tag articles with  and let the contributor know with , or try to find some yourself. If there aren't any, it might need to be deleted." Note that article "might need to be deleted" only after legitimate attempts have been made to obtain sources.; 4) "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days." Our nominator, a proud, active member of this group (see Morgan Wick, where the WP:NPP tag is the first item on the page), refused to follow these guidelines, and does not recognize that proposing an article three minutes after creation might be inherently uncivil, regardless of participation in this group. As User:Noroton has wonderfully demonstrated, there are dozens of sources regarding this school, several of which have been added. There is no way that they could have been added within the three minutes alloted. Given the persistent refusal of many participants to consider notability as an option, regardless of the number or quality of sources, it will be interesting to see how many (or few) of those clamoring for sources can now justify their stand. Alansohn 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional comment I just did a Google News Archives search (Go to Google, go to Google News, click on "archives" at left once you've done the Google News search for "Clayton High" and Gloucester). I came up with dozens upon dozens of articles about various features of Clayton High School appearing in the Philadelphia Inquirer since the mid-1980s (along with a lot of minor references, but there are 71 articles in total). Unfortunately, each article costs about $3 to access. There is no doubt that this high school has received coverage establishing its notability. Then again, there never is any doubt of that with any high school, which is why they're all inherently notable. Noroton 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: Notability is now established with multiple, reliable, independent news articles giving substantial coverage to the school. There is no longer a notability argument for this deletion discussion. I ask those previously in favor of deletion to look over the article again and reconsider. Noroton 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment My opinion has not changed by viewing these "sources". Those sources don't establish any sort of notability whatsoever.  (edit) Here is my reasoning.  My high school, which was around 400 students, in a small town of 6500, had the same type of coverage when the Middle school received fiber-optic lines so we could have a class taught by a teacher in the next town over by using TV/microphones.  However, that isn't anything special, and my high school is not now, or ever was, notable.  I strongly disagree with those articles establishing anything special about the school.  I love my high school, especially the teachers there, because I went there, just like you go to this high school...but no matter how much you love it, that does not make it notable. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Response:sumjim, in your comments higher up you specifically cited WP:N and said the article needed verifiable, reliable, independent sources, and I quote: Instead of sitting on the AfD hitting refresh to every reply, get some reliable sources and improve the article to keep it (although I highly doubt this Middle/High School is notable anyways -- listing links to the homepage of the school does not count for notability). This article will NEVER survive if you just sit here arguing, without backing up your claim. If you just recreated it for a different user, then it should be on them to assert it's notability, but since you have been arguing over 12 hours on this, you apparantly have some sort of interest in the article. Get in gear and work on the article instead of going back and forth and accomplishing nothing. Now that I've done just what you requested I see you're raising the bar higher. I see no reason to question your good faith, if only because in a long discussion people can get confused and even change their minds. But regardless of your motives, your argument now lacks credibility. You should think about it and either change your mind or show how your inconsistency is justified. Again, I'm not addressing you or your character, just your arguments. Noroton 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not raising the bar higher, or changing my reasoning. Just because a newspaper wrote an article about the school (ie: getting videoconferencing cameras) does not make it notable.  The middle school of my 6,000 population town got that 12 years ago.  Nothing special.  If the NY Times wrote an article on page 54 about a student who skipped school that day, would that make the school notable?  Nope.  You have to look at the article in question and see what it's about.  if it's trivial, then it doesn't count.  I'm sorry to say, but your school is NOT NOTABLE  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I never went to the school and have nothing to do with it.Noroton 17:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're raising the bar higher because nobody forced you to cite WP:N, which has a definition of notability that you're now ignoring. It also has a definition of "trivial" coverage that you're also now ignoring. Then you suggested that you'd change your vote if only notability standards could be met. You also repeatedly urged that efforts be made to meet the criteria in WP:N and WP:RS. I repeat: You encouraged editors to make improvements to the article to meet THOSE standards. And now you won't admit what's plainly in black and white with your Wikipedia signature on it. "If the NY Times wrote an article on page 54 about a student who skipped school that day, would that make the school notable?" Well if that's what you believe, why didn't you say that when you cited WP:N? Or did you read WP:N before you cited it? You could say you weren't careful, or you could say you changed your mind, but you can't say you've been consistent. Why should we take your statements seriously if you don't? Noroton 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are taking this way too seriously. At this point, I don't even understand what you are trying to say. Yes, I told you to to get WP:RS, however just because a newspaper wrote an article about something that virtually every school has these days, does not make it special, or notable.  Big whoopdie doo, the school has cameras.  That is not notable, no matter which way you slice it.  This school has does NOTHING special to garner attention, there is NO ONE now or before that has does anything notable (at least we don't know unless there are sources to confirm there has been).  I've said my peace, and I doubt I need to reiterate the same thing over again.  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 20:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of WP:N is not to show that an article meets YOUR standards of notability but that it meets the standards of notability of reliable, independent sources who are willing to publish reliable information on the subject of the article. So when you urge others to improve the article and provide a link in your comment to WP:N, indicating that WP:N is your standard, you are misleading those others by then setting up your own personal standards without telling us. In WP:N the point of demonstrating that there is independent coverage of a subject is to show that some responsible third party cares about the subject of the article, not that the coverage itself shows the subject to be the best thing since sliced bread. I agree that there's some room for subjective judgments in Wikipedia, but this isn't one of them. Noroton 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion has not changed, either. Creating a cable show?  Having counseling?  Still no notability. Corvus cornix 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with above as well. Eusebeus 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eusebeus, your initial posting on this page reads: "Delete as another nn school. Eusebeus 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)" and "nn" in your post is a link to WP:N. I specifically met the criteria of WP:N, so, just like sumjim, you give your objection, I meet your objection and ... what? New objection? Problem with the way I met your objection? Again, as with sumjim, I'm not questioning your motives, but your contradictory stances don't contribute to the discussion. Again, please give it more thought. Noroton 17:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it does confer notability, because it's not our subjective call whether a subject is notable. WP:N is defined as significant coverage by WP:RS.  If a major metropolitan newspaper has determined that a subject is newsworthy, it satisfies WP:N, even though we might think the reasons for coverage are marginal or worse. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * However, it is up to editors to consider sources and not just accept everything someone, even for a newspaper, wrote.--Svetovid 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess a major metropolitan newspaper writing multiple news stories about the school just isn't terribly reliable, is it? What higher standards would you propose?Noroton 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a general approach and a good one at that so no need for sarcasm, which does not prove anything. See CRITICAL EVALUATION OF RESOURCES for example.--Svetovid 20:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh no -- once we've established that it's The Philadelphia Inquirer, a major metropolitan daily -- the onus is on YOU to show it's an unreliable source. And for purposes of THIS discussion about deletion on the basis of non-notability, when notability is defined at WP:N as having a reliable, independent source of information giving substantial coverage to a school on multiple occasions, it's a wee bit hard to say that that didn't take place, given the Web links. Did they cover the school multiple times in substantial ways as defined by WP:N or not? If you have doubts, please state them. Noroton 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of the people above have made the point that most high schools receive similar coverage. In other words, if WP:RS alone is your sole standard of notability, you're advocating the "all high schools are notable" tack. Morgan Wick 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Good thing we're not a paper encyclopedia. Noroton 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow, as plenty of high school articles are deleted on notability grounds. (See Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive for examples.  Many of those had the benefit of experienced inclusionist editors searching in vain for WP:RS to show WP:N.)  So what we do is examine each one on its own merits, just like any other subject at Wikipedia.  --Butseriouslyfolks 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If a high school is in a poorer, more rural area, the local newspapers are less likely to have much of a footprint on the Web, therefore those of us who search for that stuff online are less likely to see it. But it is not possible for a high school to exist in the United States without multiple, independent reports about it (off line). Not possible. So we're really just playing a game here when it comes to deciding what's notable enough under the current Wikipedia notability rules. And really, we all know it. We know that there is reliable information on a public school's own Web site because it's just a little too difficult to lie much as a local government agency. We also know that the No Child Left Behind Act mandates that reports be generated on every school. But we prefer to do this dance. Noroton 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All of this reasoning fails utterly to convince me since schools are generally not notable. If the topic is inherently unnotable, trying to satisfy the exigencies laid out at WP:N is irrelevant. The German, French and other foreign langauge wikipedias do not accept most schools as notable, and I agree with the logic of those arguments. Disagree - that's fine. But don't pretend that somehow the guidelines of notability offer a magic solution for determining notability that trumps good judgment. That is absurd. Eusebeus 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eusebeus, you've completely avoided the question I asked you: Why did you cite WP:N if you really just want to make your own judgment? If only your personal judgment in each case is what you go by, then why should anyone try to start any article on any school if editors like you will come by later with some unpredictable judgment that the article should be deleted? What are your standards, if any? And why did you cite WP:N if you don't believe in it? Noroton 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Apathetic Keep. I have read the article, all of it's sources and all of the mostly unnecessary comments in this AfD. I don't buy into the "all schools are notable" line of garbage, but I do have an issue with an article not being given the chance to prove itself. I have nominated more than just a few school for deletion in the past due to non-notability, but I prefer to give them a minimum of a few months to allow to article to grow and mature before I start the AfD proceedings.
 * I do not feel that the article currently meets notability guidelines, but there is enough information out that which suggests to me that this school has the potential for notability. I would like to see it given the chance to prove itself before deleting it. Trusilver 20:19, 18 June 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.