Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Hills 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 keep. Article has been improved and nom also appears to be withdrawn. Kubigula (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Hills High School

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not assert notability, though I am lenient on high schools. What pushed me to AfD it is that it is written like a directory, and ends up holding no encyclopedic value as a result. Wizardman 21:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Looks better now. Wizardman 18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Alansohn 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep A rather poorly written article, written as a laundry list, rather than as an article. But it does make distinct claims of notability, including 9 years of consecutive wins by the Symphonic and Jazz band in national competition, and a 36-year win streak by the Eastern Hills JROTC Rifle Team. I have already started trimming and copyediting, and the article has much more room for improvement. Alansohn 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Upgrading vote to Keep. Again, kudos must be offered to User:TerriersFan for taking the time and effort to research and improve the article, when so many others just sit on their behinds and do absolutely nothing. It is effort like this that is the definition of collaboration in building an encyclopedia, not just getting rid of what some don't like. Alansohn 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Someschool Y won the district ballet competition 10 yrs in a row and Someschool Z  has won the gold medal in archery for 37 yrs. In that case, let's drop the charade that they meet WP:N and let's just say that all schools are automatically notable, like towns and villages. I personally wouldn't mind, I believe there are definitive advantages with that solution, but giving any kind of topic special de facto implicit privilieges regarding policies is not a good thing in my opinion. Either they should be enforced or declared not valid for that topic.--victor falk 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No argument from me on the implicit notability of schools, which would save much wasted time. If I understand your "argument", are you saying that this school's accomplishments are not notable because some other school -- which you can't even identify -- just might have won accomplishments in some other area that are even greater than this school? What are these "special de facto implicit privilieges [sic] regarding policies" that are taking place here? This is the definition of consensus: the amassing of evidence over scores of AfDs that there is strong agreement that such schools are notable, even if there is a stubborn minority that opposed this consensus.
 * First you misunderstand my argument. I'm not "unable to identify" some other school, it's a hypotethical example showing that any school could fit the bill. I'm not against articles against schools with notable achievements, I'm against articles about schools with just achievements. It's like saying "only notable persons should have articles" and then saying "every person is notable because every human being has achieved something". Like me running a marathon in under four hours. Second, about consensus, if it is that such schools are notable per se, so be it. But then don't pretend they meet guidelines like wp:n, etc.--victor falk 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Poorly written is not a reason for deletion Smashville 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Very strong. This school has no notability, nor does it assert notability.  It does look like a directory, providing no real context. - Rjd0060 22:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Though it needs a tag requesting third party sources Frog47 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Unless the creator can establish notability. Most of the information can be obtained from the schools website. I don't think it is necessary to know what subjects are taught. Muntuwandi 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can people stop quoting WP:OUTCOMES in cases where there is no apparent notability? That page is just a "scorecard" of what has happened. Not what should happen. Crazysuit 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - High schools are notable per WP:CONSENSUS as WP:OUTCOMES indicates. --Oakshade 05:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no consensus, as the lack of a sorely needed WP:SCHOOL policy should be a hint of. And wp:outcomes is really a pathetic reason, much worse than wp:otherstuff (of which it is basically a grand generalisation). No, the reason not to keep is that "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of yellow pages".--victor falk 09:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a school directory or the school's website. There is no longer a general consensus that all schools are notable. This article lacks external sources to verify the content. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The combination of alumni and athletics is sufficient for notability. I think there is a developing consensus that all high schools are sufficiently notable that the articles should be kept as a matter of practicality. Let's save AfD for the more important discussions. But even if one does not agree, this particular article is acceptable.DGG (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have now added the necessary multiple references to meet WP:N. Further expansion is needed but that is the way with stubs. Since this is a discussion, not a vote, the deleters need to argue why the combination of references do not meet WP:N for their !votes to be valid. TerriersFan 18:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the excellent work by TerriersFan, this now meets WP:N and invalidates many previous comments. RFerreira 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentI'm sorry but I have to disagree. Consider the following hypothetical news item: "Grand auto thievery red-lighted: The thief that had stolen Random Schmuck's car, who had bought it secondhand from Someguy X was apprehended by the police..." Would that be ground for an article about Someguy X? It wouldn't be even if  he was the car thief. Replace Someguy X with Someschool X and that the kind of "news coverage establishing notability" you find in this article. --victor falk 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to disagree, but this certainly meets our notability guidelines. RFerreira 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There must be something I've missed then; why hasn't every person that's ever been mentioned in a couple of news story its own article?--victor falk 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment 1 The consensus on the advisability of considering all high schools notable is not yet complete--examination of the various discussions over the past 2 weeks at AfD shows a considerable variability. It seems to be asserted more widely when there are good reasons for thinking the school notable in any case. By the way, my own opinion has changed in this. Until fairly recently, I did not agree on their all being notable--and I think that some of them may not actually be in any ordinary meaning of the word, any more than all inhabited places or all railroad stations. I think it is rather a combination of convenience and compromise. The great majority of established high schools turn out to be notable by WP standards if enough effort is put into the article, and it is not worth these discussions to weed out the remaining 10 or 20%. This is very different from elementary schools, where I'd say less than 10% are notable.  And that's the [point of the compromise. If we accept the distinction, we can spend our afd energies on more important things. We might even have time to write some more articles--there are many high schools not yet written about that almost certainly should be, especially in major cities.
 * comment 2 Crimes relating to schools are notable in many cases because he public finds them so, and the sources are therefore available. In this case, the primary one is the administrations hiding of evidence in a murder case. If someguy X in the above example had been a senior public official in  the community who had been caught conspiring with other public officials to conceal his involvement in selling a car to someone without proper identification who had then used it in a deliberate murder, yes that might also be notable. That's closer to the situation here.
 * comment 3  It is true that over time most high schools will accumulate some athletic and academic competitive victories. That's one of the reason most of them are notable. that elementary schools do not generally have such competitions is one of the reasons they generally aren't. (I've come back to expand  these three comments at the request of victor talk.)DGG (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as notability is now demonstrated within the article. See also: WP:OUTCOMES.   Bur nt sau ce  18:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep ONLY if the "Statistics" section can be cited. &mdash;ScouterSig 14:46, 31 October 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.