Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Redeemer High School - Southwest Detroit


 * 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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy Redeemer High School - Southwest Detroit
*Delete While I agree with Truthbringer that notability does not vanish when an institution closes this school did not have any notability in the first place. The only argument that can be made for notability is the age of the school but even then it barely goes back to the 1880s. I was unable to find any record of notable almuni or any other particulary notable event or matter associated with the school. JoshuaZ 01:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Now changing to Weak keep the age of the school might confer notability. JoshuaZ 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * delete I fail to understand why this topic is sufficiently significant to feature in wikipedia. Senordingdong 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article deals with a closed high school, but a school's encyclopedic notability does not vanish when it closes. The decision to close the school is best understood in the context of demographic change, declining church attendance, and the financial pressures on Roman Catholic dioceses related to lawsuits over sexual abuse. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs to be reworked, but the text and desciption that is already there demonstrate notability. I fail to see how the lack of notable graduates makes the school any less notable; as if schools have an obligation to turn out notables to justify their existence. Nor is it clear that a school that survived for 120 years should be any less notable because it could "only" date itself back to the early 1880s. Alansohn 02:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, no excuse to deprive interested readers of this much encylopedic information. Kappa 03:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for posterity for the reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools. John R. Mulroy attended this school, and based on this story we may want to incorporate that fact into the article.  Silensor 03:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment As earlier I will note my rebuttal essay of User:JoshuaZ/Schools As to Mulroy, it is not obvious that meets WP:BIO so how is that article relevant? JoshuaZ 03:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep School is clearly notable and been around for over 100 years.Bagginator 05:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, mainly on grounds of age Pseudomonas 12:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 15:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep sourced, encyclopaedic, meets common law standards. No rational whatsoever has been presented for deletion. WilyD 18:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, the presented argument is a lack of notability. It might help if you actually responded to the issues actually brought up rather than just assert that they didn't exist. JoshuaZ 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Arguments that are false upon their face don't really count as arguments in any viable way. Saying This claims to be an encyclopaedia article, but is actually a cheese sandwich would also be difficult to count as an argument for deletion, even though it has the form thereof. WilyD 18:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually that would still be an argument and you said "no rational" given that multiple other people think this is a rational including the nom who is a respected user it might behoove you to explain how this argument is so bad that it doesn't even merity being addressed. If you could explain it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. While yelling Is too - Is not might be also termed an argument, I would hope it's clear from context I mean a line of reasoning based upon facts - none of those have been offered to support deletion. WilyD 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Notability is not a magic default state. Are you going to explain what is notable about the article or not? You asserted that it was based on data in the article. If so, please point to it. JoshuaZ 18:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're excused. I haven't said anything about notability being default, rather than it's been establish (please read the article to discover this).  Notability isn't subjective - I don't like this sourced, encyclopaedic article, so I'm going to accuse it of being non-notable is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 18:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability not being subjective is irrelevant since there is no claim that anything here is notable. Don't confuse a lack of subjectivity with magically making everything notable. In any event, most of the people who say this isn't notable have objective notabillity criteria). Given this it might be nice for you to explain what is objectively notable about this article? JoshuaZ 18:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you'll check the article, you'll find that it has mutliple, indepedant reliable sources - thus it is objectively notable. The standards of notability are notability are not personal standards, they're standards we apply evenly across wikipedia. Multiple sources of third party coverage from reliable, independant sources is notable - and this is not my standards, but Wikipedia's standards.  Nobody can objectively claim this school isn't notable - only subjective claims can be made to that effect (and subjective claims are useless in this context) WilyD 11:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The use of the multiple independent sources standard is something used in certain guidelines. However, there are serious issues using it with schools. As I have already pointed out, newspapers love to puff-pieces on schools. Thus, it isn't a real assertion of notability. JoshuaZ 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The multiple independent sources standard applies just about everywhere - although other litmus-style tests are occasionally used, it's clearly the most important test, and is used ubiquitiously. Where specific guidelines exist, there can be higher standards - though that's essentially to prevent spamming.   Whether newspapers print "puff-pieces" on schools is something I really don't know (nor do I really care).  Personal standards of notability go against everything this encyclopaedia stands for.  If some publisher has found something worth publishing (better:multiple publishers) then that's a far more WP:NPOV acceptable criterion for retention, the converse for deletion. WilyD 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; It appears to satisfy the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines and more than meets my personal criteria for high school notability. Just because it's now closed doesn't make it non-notable. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Schools over 120+ years old are most definitely notable.  Yamaguchi先生 22:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As usual for schools of any size. -- Necrothesp 00:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So now its any school of any size? JoshuaZ 00:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * High schools are usually kept (or as my physicist training wants me to say, High Schools are always kept within measurement errors) WilyD 12:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I meant "any size" in the sense of "any reasonable size". The phrase has two meanings. -- Necrothesp 17:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep schools of any size or smaller. That includes this encyclopedic treatment of a Detroit schoool that existed for over 100 years. --JJay 01:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth. Defunct schools of this age hold historical interest.  Bahn Mi 01:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, in consideration of the age.--Aldux 11:25, 22 September 2006 (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.