Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International High School of New Orleans


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

International High School of New Orleans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG PriceDL (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , what attempt have you made to findsources according to WP:BEFIORE?  DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have done both general and news specific google searches. Pretty much all the news articles seem to me to be local news, failing WP:AUD. The sources which may be regional apear to be about employment issues and therefore I consider to fail WP:ORGDEPTH. Overall I don't really see any opportunity for the growth of this stub through the use of independent sources. Happy to be proven wrong if someone can actually expand it appropriately PriceDL (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep If there is sufficient documentation even in local news that it exists, consensus remains that all such high schools are to be considered notable. It's a purely empirical decision to avoid thousands of discussions that will at best lead to the inconsistent removal of a few percent of the articles, depending on how many people show up to defend them. That's what it was like before we agreed to consider them as notable.  DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do you have a link to this guidance? WP:NSCHOOL states they should meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, which I don't believe they do. Additionally, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that current concensus is that the historical deletion rate of nominated high schools is not an argument to keep future high schools. PriceDL (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is currently a one-sentence unsourced article, and (especially in view of the recent RfC) I can acknowledge the argument that a ministub like this isn't ready for the mainspace. On the other hand, this is a highly rated charter high school—for example, one of only two schools in Louisiana to show up in Newsweek's "Beating the Odds" ratings in 2015  and in its "best IB schools ratings in 2017 . It is highly likely that an article could be written to meet current standards for high school articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: I spent 5 minutes on the article.  Obvious keep.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL, I read the recent RFC, more time wasted over nothing. If an article on a U.S. high school is one sentence, you can make the world better by expanding it, very easily, in 99 out of 100 cases.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, it is a high school that exists, per wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES i think is the link. There recently was a silly RFC or silly closure of an RFC that attempted to reverse good tradition/practice of keeping secondary schools;  the RFC should be entirely disregarded. -- do  ncr  am  21:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * disregard community consensus? that's not how Wikipedia works. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * that rfc concluded nothing of value.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:57, 27 April 2017 (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.