Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Grove 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. Krakatoa Katie  11:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Forest Grove High School

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable school. Also, this article includes extension (phone) numbers for the staff, and that makes it seem directory-like. Anyways, no assertion of notability, so before anybody asks why I didn't tag it for speedy, it is because in my experience, schools never get speedy'd as a lot of admins think schools are exempt from A7. Rjd0060 05:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs more info instead of just listing clubs & sports teams. Canuck85 06:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Total Rewrite - the editor in question could look at schools such as King Henry VIII School for an idea of what to aim for. Thedreamdied 07:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   —Camaron1 | Chris 09:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite I am of the opinion that every school has some form of claim to fame, and some more than others. Any famous or notable people come from the college?  If written correctly (as per what Thedreamdied said - have a look at other articles on schools), then the article may have some levity.  Won't comment as to keep or delete until I have seen an attempt at rewrite. msg me when rewritten. cheers, T--T3Smile 12:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - A total re-write might be better than deletion. School has had some clear news coverage and has won awards for improvement and achievement, which suggests some notability. Camaron1 | Chris 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: To everybody that is suggesting a rewrite, Where is this new information going to come from? Are we just supposed to leave this page up there until somebody decides they want to add to it? - Rjd0060 15:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I many cases yes, it has long been argued that articles should be kept on what they could be, not just what they are. I and other users frequently clean up articles brought to AFD, and I can go through WikiProject Schools channels to give the article more attention. Sources can be taken from the school website, and the few other secondary sources a Google search reveals. Offline sources, such as newspapers are also a possibility. Camaron1 | Chris 15:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ugh, directorycruft.  Also WP:NN. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge a summary into the town article. This page doesn't currently meet my personal High School notability criteria. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:OUTCOMES but rewrite. Smashville 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I apologize in advance for the sarcasm. Where on OUTCOMES does it say high schools should be kept?  I must have missed it.  On nearly every school AfD I contribute to, somebody brings this up.  OUTCOMES does not contain any recommendations, nor suggestions, nor does it say what type of articles should/could stay on Wikipedia.  It contains unverified statistics. - Rjd0060 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to sound rude, but it seems like a lazy vote, on Smashville's part, IMO. Don't worry about it. In fact I think there is a policy the discourages this type of rational, er rather non-rational, because it's like VOTING. Which we know that's not what Wikipedia is about, it's consensus that Wikipedia depends on, not VOTES! Jeeny (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a lazy vote - it's a vote based on precedent. "Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AfD, with high schools being kept." Smashville 03:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Precedent doesn't matter, and neither does that stupid list of statistics, unless of course, you show me where it says that all future AfD's about those topics should follow the "precedent" listed there. You can't, because it doesn't say that.  In fact, it says the opposite, as CCC. - Rjd0060 04:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Precedent doesn't matter, and neither does that stupid list of statistics, unless of course, you show me where it says that all future AfD's about those topics should follow the "precedent" listed there. You can't, because it doesn't say that.  In fact, it says the opposite, as CCC. - Rjd0060 04:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. The "clear news coverage" is LOCAL! Here, there are many schools that have done something new and won awards and have been on the local news, because of one thing or another, but that does not make them notable on a wide enough scale for an encyclopedia. It is for the local press. Unless, it gains wide-spread NATIONAL coverage for something special, these types of school articles do not belong on Wikipedia. Agree with CRGreathouse as directorycruft. (sigh) Jeeny (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge to Forest Grove School District unless this improves greatly over the next couple of days, then I may change my !vote. Please do not suggest merging into city article, from which I split off the school district article to reduce clutter. It's better placed with the school district. I'll take care of the merge if that is the decision. BTW, the Oregonian is the statewide paper and a respected news source and should be considered a reliable source. There's nothing inherently wrong with local coverage unless it's a xeroxed weekly or something. Katr67 01:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As with all Afds, if the people who !vote keep would actually take some time to help improve the article, their opinions might have more weight. Katr67 13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm changing to keep--notability far beyond that of most high schools has been well established and cited. People who are dismayed by directorycruft should take a second look, please. Katr67 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:OUTCOMES demonstrates that high schools are notable per WP:CONSENSUS. Besides, it's the in depth subject of multiple secondary reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY.      --Oakshade 06:32, 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 09:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Other than a few rather stubborn obstructionists, consensus is amply clear that such schools are notable based on the outcomes of previous, failed AfDs. WP:OUTCOMES summarizes what consensus is based on the clear precedent in this area, and couldn't be any more useful in guiding action on all such articles. WP:NOT, the last gasp excuse for deletion of articles when no meaningfully valid Wikipedia policy can be referenced, could not be any more irrelevant here. Ample reliable and verifiable secondary sources have been added to fully satisfy the Notability standard. Alansohn 12:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable high school. and plenty of sources available for expansion. Now that it has been cleaned up and provided with multiple sources it sails through WP:N. TerriersFan 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, rotm school. Since the result of the school debate has been a firm no consensus dating back to 2004 (or earlier), citing WP:OUTCOMES is wishful thinking. Eusebeus 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though it was the in depth subject of multiple secondary pieces? --Oakshade 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions.   —Katr67 19:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is only relating to comments about those who believe notability is a national issue. Could you please point that out from WP:NOTE. I think you will find it is not there. Please cite actual policy and not your opinion. If you believe it should be national notability for a topic, first that argument needs to be taken to WP:NOTE, and secondly good luck with that arguement. As to The Oregonian, it has higher daily circulations than say the Seattle Times and Boston Herald, and covers a larger geographic area than either one, and has won numerous Pulitzer Prizes, so if that doesn't qualify as a WP:RS, then WP:RS is going to have to be ammended from "mainstream newspapers" to "newspapers that somepeople consider not local" and again good luck with that. Aboutmovies 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand. It's not about the press is local or national or international, it is what about they write. Mentions in news articles such as "John Doe, who dropped out of Forest Grove High School in 1997, was arrested for...", or "many students of Forest Grove High School have been infected by this year's flu that is particularly virulent to teenagers...", or Forest Grove High School students to travel to sister city in Japan establish no notability whatsoever. I don't see any coverage of Forest Grove High School for anything notable. Anyway, that's rather moot, as the article itself does not make any claim of notability. That is ground for speedy deletion, so this article is already given an unfair chance by being here at AfD at all.--victor falk 13:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand. Please read the entire debate first. I never said they were notable or not. My comment was dirrected (as I outlined at the beginning of my comment) to the people who were saying The Oregonian newspaper was not a reliable source and that notability is on a national level. Both of those points are completely correct. Please strike-out your comments directed at me. Aboutmovies 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did. We agree that local press (such as 'the Oregonian') are wp:reliable and wp:verifiable sources for satisfying wp:n. My mistake. Note that what I dispute is not wether the sources for the claims to notability satisfy wp:rs and wp:v, but if the claims themselves meet wp:n--victor falk 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Victor falk, those articles do establish notabilty, to the letter of WP:NOTE; "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."--Oakshade 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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's the kind of "news coverage establishing notability" you find in this article.--victor falk 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The coverage here is much more directly about the high school than that in the hypothetical scenario regarding Someguy X. --Oakshade 01:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * comment I read your debate here, and honestly, all the effort here could have been used to rewrite article. Stop this silly AfD and keep the article for a rewrite - or merge it until the quality can be improved enough to go on its own.  Its cool the shcool did the aussie teacher exchange thing!  But, article needs some quality writing behind it - look at other schools and how they did it.  Thanks for reading - T--T3Smile 12:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. There are 22,000 articles in the google news archive that mention FGHS.  A lot of them are sports scores, but there are many that aren't.  This could probably be made into a GA, if someone were to work on it hard enough. - Peregrine Fisher 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A Hated Google Test yielding 22,000 hits is an indubitable proof of existence, not notability. See my comment above. None of the current sources are better than my imaginary examples. What is needed is quality, not quantity; just a couple of article saying "Newsflash: FGHS is notable for suchandsuch". Then, and only then, can we discuss if suchandsuch meets WP:N--victor falk 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have gone through and cleaned it up, and added sources that demonstrate the notability of the school with non-trivial coverage. Aboutmovies 23:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The dozen or so non trivial sources make this a no-brainer.  See also: WP:OUTCOMES.   Bur nt sau ce  18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article now clearly meets the minimum standards of notability. -- DS1953 talk  01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Alansohn. Twenty Years 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Auroranorth (sign) 10:55, 1 November 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.