Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keene 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 07:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keene High School

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Virtually no verifiable content, and no sources provided. Full of original research. --Slowking Man 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article looks much better now; I'd say to keep it. Since other users have expressed varying opinions, however, I'll leave this open. --Slowking Man 07:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless this article has one or more reliable sources, it is not worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia.  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to keep: Sources have been provided. No more original research.  V 6 0  VTalk ·  VDemolitions 22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   -- Noroton 02:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no reason to assume that this school is of any importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete Keep There is no consensus that high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the many high school AfDs closed as "no consensus". But I fall on the weak side of delete on this one because if it really does have an award winning music program, it might be sufficiently notable.  In any case, we need some WP:A to keep this. This article, however, satisfies WP:N and WP:A in a couple of areas, so it should be kept.  Nice job on this one, by the way. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I want to say "delete" because there are no sources provided. But I want to say "keep" because it claims to be award-winning in music. But there are no sources for that, so it might be OR. Then again, sources can be gathered through a local newspaper, student government newspaper publications, and probably the site of the music awards they won. :(  Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep primary sources are acceptable in articles about themselves. School's own website provides plenty of reference for the content in the article.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are acceptable as additional sources, not as the main or only sources used for establishing notability. Otherwise it would be very easy to make hoaxes or false claims to get into Wikipedia (I'm not saying that that is happening here, I just want to point out that using primary sources to establish notability and to assess importance is strictly to be avoided). Fram 10:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not being used to establish notability, its being used to verify content within the article. By using your same logic you'd deny whitehouse.gov as a reliable source in an article on the White House.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 07:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not being used to establish notability, its being used to verify content within the article. By using your same logic you'd deny whitehouse.gov as a reliable source in an article on the White House.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 07:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I agree with what User Ed said, the school might be notable (re: music) but it definately needs more than just the schools own website. A few more references and ill change to keep. LordHarris 06:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Has been improved, has quite a few sources, its notable.LordHarris 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For now, delete. Seems to be non-notable. If more sources are found, especially about the music part of the school, then keep.  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 07:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is no indication of notability in the article -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing in the article that establishes notability (which means that there is no way of finding reliable sources). Pax:Vobiscum 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Keene, New Hampshire since most of the stuff here is pretty basic, and I am unconvinced that information about school clubs is altogether encyclopedic. Nevertheless, info on a town's education system is valid so I'll oppose outright deletion. The wish to have independent sources is mostly one of verifiability as far as I can see. Unless someone is seriously contesting the existence of this school, I cannot see why the sources used should be a serious issue. (Dividing schools into "notable" and "non-notable" based on whether a newspaper has or has not happened to write something about them is a poor practice, which is the very reason I have disputed the WP:N guideline.) There does exist an independent source that Barack Obama has used the school to stage a "town hall event", but it is not really enough to establish a fully independent article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for my usual reasons. Nothing on the page appears to be unverifiable or original research by the definitions of those terms given on the appropriate pages. Please do not confuse lack of sources with unverifiability and original research - this is explained quite clearly on WP:ATT. -- Necrothesp 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not original research, but that doesn't mean this article doesn't fail WP:ATT. "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." and "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." This article is not based on any published secondary sources at all, and the claims made are not only descriptive. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source, and thus this article as it stands has no place here. Fram 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible" (italics mine). Nowhere does it say that articles based only on primary sources should be deleted. That is a leap of logic that is unsupported in the policy. The existence of the school is easily verifiable, therefore there is no reason to delete the article. This is a phony deletionist argument that I have seen all too often in the past. -- Necrothesp 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added a reference about a talk by a politician which took place at the school. --Eastmain 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I added an external link to the Great Schools Web site. Since every or nearly every high school, at least in the United States, has its own Web site with information on the school, and since the Great Schools Web site has information and individual web pages on all or nearly all high schools in the country, you can always assume that a U.S. high school has at least two sources of information on it, plus whatever you can dig up on Google, Google News and Google News Archives. In addition, with the "No Child Left Behind" act, state departments of education are increasingly posting statistics on high schools on the state DOE Web sites. That should be enough notability for all public high schools in the U.S. It is hard for a public U.S. high school not to be notable by Wikipedia's definition. I think the only reason to redirect a high school article is lack of interest by editors in building up the article and letting the article become a vandal magnet. I argue here that all high schools are inherently notable. Noroton 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up schools are notable but this article is a mess of original research much of which ought to be deleted IMO. Irides centi  22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; satisfactory. &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article as is more than adequately describes the school, and there are ample reliable and verifiable sources available, that have already been added and will be added to the article to further demonstrate notability. Alansohn 02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - a notable school and the article now has the necessary secondary sources. TerriersFan 18:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on the Great Schools website. As Noronton says, it lists essentially every school. The information it lists is posted by the school, and the word "great" in the title is an obvious misnomer. It is therefor an uncritical list, and inherently trivial, and cannot be used as a RS for any purpose. Ditto with DOE Websites: they list every school. Noronton argues that this makes all schools notable. I'd say that this is just about as notable as the mere listing on Amazon makes a book notable. They are both indiscriminate lists. The listings on these sites are trivial in the WP sense. Now, if something in such a listing is truly noteworthy, and confirmed by independent sources, that is another matter. DGG 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems that the article could be made better by using references and cleanup. -- Wenli 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - definitely notable. - Richard Cavell 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now that the article describes the subject in a notable light and is adequately sourced according to our attribution requirements. Burntsauce 17:53, 23 March 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.