Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holton 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. It's notable and not hurting anybody, so it stays. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 00:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Holton High School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication that it passes WP:NSCHOOL / WP:ORG or WP:GNG: No references to support either notability or for verification Eagleash (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's not disputed to exist, it is a high school.  By longstanding precedent, despite muddying of waters by a badly closed RFC, articles like this are kept.  No benefit to further AFDs on these points.  By the way, is there a Wikipedia article about your own high school?  Why attack this one. --Doncram (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Also no indication that wp:BEFORE was performed.  Don't be a jerk. --Doncram (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft and redirect to Holton, Kansas There's potential for it to be an article, but hardly any news articles demonstrating significant coverage of the school, only passing mentions in the congressional directory and Maxpreps website. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot think of a time where we failed to keep an article on a high school. Holton High School has likely been around for over 100 years or more.  It's difficult to comprehend the possibility that there are not any offline sources on the school and there are plenty of online sources about their sports teams and academic programs to confirm it exists--so many that it seems to me to pass WP:GNG on that measure alone.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why I suggested moving to draft. There are no GNG sources presented so far, just passing mentions and directory listings. So if it's going to be at that level of notability, it should redirect to a directory appropriate level like a list of schools or the school district. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * AngusWOOF, you are conceding it is notable, which means it should be in mainspace. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP.  It is appropriate to redirect primary schools to their school district, but this is a secondary school.  I hate these AFDs. --Doncram (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So which source are you presenting as GNG? It doesn't have to be in the actual article right now, as you said "not for cleanup", but if you can place it here in AFD then that will suffice to show that it has potential. However, this article was recently created (21 March 2018), so according to the flow chart, with Borderline notability, Draft would be the best place for it until the stub-level information has been placed into the article with GNG sources or into its talk page as refideas.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. As always turns out to be the case with U.S. public high schools, even small town schools like this one, a look at the sources shows that sufficient coverage exists to sustain the article.  The school participates in interschool athletics  and other activities covered in reliable sources, and it has at least 2 notable alumni.  See also the "news" and "HighBeam" links above for more examples of coverage.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of these two sources presented, the first one is a passing mention. The second one is better, indicating some activity from the high school that has impacted the community. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon re-examination, the second source is also but a passing mention, a single sentence saying how the school was involved. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the local Holton Recorder appears to have lots of coverage, and there's enough in other sources. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 15:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So list them. would work. Also   Pat Roberts alum visit   AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and in fact I recommend that the nomination be withdrawn. Obviously notable. Blythwood (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence based on deep analysis has been offered that this century-old high school is somehow not notable. Far better to spend a few minutes improving such an article, instead of wasting time trying to delete it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:UGLY article, but notable topic. On the one hand, I'd like editors to develop an article more before putting it in namespace. On the other hand, it's more productive to use our time improving articles than in AfD. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then develop it in draft. That's what it's for. It can then be approved by AFC when it becomes obvious it meets GNG with multiple significant coverage sources and not passing mentions or directory-like listings. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 13:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment it's possible that an article on a notable topic could be so poorly written that deletion would be much better until the article can be properly developed, but I don't believe that is the case here. I do not see any policy violation (such as WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP) that would prompt such a step.  Wikipedia is far from complete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend deletion. It really just takes 2 local, but not directly published by the school, articles that significantly cover the school. As soon as that is presented, then it should meet GNG. But if it's just promises that references will come, then keep it in draft. It was created on March 21, so it's not like it urgently needed to be put in the main Wikipedia namespace right away. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. AngusWOOF acknowledges/suggests a few sources above which they view as valid (i am not checking) but wants to insist that the article be moved to Draft space to be improved by someone else presumably.  They wish to delete the article and its Talk page link to this AFD which discusses the sources, making it hard for someone else to know about their sources.  Just add the darn sources that you want in.  This is silly. --Doncram (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2018 (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.