Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennesaw Mountain 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kennesaw Mountain High School

 * — (View AfD)

School with no assertion of notability and no encyclopedic content. Hús ö  nd  21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Accredited high schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No such policy.-- Hús  ö  nd  21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia has information on plenty of high schools. Jason Smith 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Inclusion is not notability.-- Hús  ö  nd  21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. And does not even seem to meet the proposed notability criteria for schools. Bubba HoTep 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is does for WP:SCHOOLS3 Pbroks13 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Why delete it, it'll get better. Articles take time, besides, it is a nationally recognized school. Pbroks13 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I don't even need to read the article. From my own knowledge, I know this high school's marching band has won numerous regional competitions and has placed extremely highly in many national competitions. This gets it past the notability requirements for just about every WP:SCHOOLS proposal, right? --- RockMFR 05:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment – yes, it's true, the marching band asserts notability on behalf of the school in the last section, but I'm not sure how this affects the school's overall notability. I see some people have been working on the article and will revisit it in due course to reassess my !vote. Bubba HoTep 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Bubba's right. If the band is notable then it should have an article on itself, not an article about the school where it comes from. If Mr. Smith has a dog that is notable, would you write an article about the dog or Mr. Smith?-- Hús  ö  nd  14:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. We don't usually make separate articles for notable high school sports teams and bands. If a school has a notable organization within it, that is reason to have an article about the school itself. WP:SCHOOL has been very clear about this. --- RockMFR 14:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense. If a high school would be notable simply and only for the fact that it has a notable band within its premises, then apart from the band there's nothing worthwhile to say about the school and therefore an article about the band would suffice. WP:SCHOOL is not a policy.-- Hús  ö  nd  14:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By this logic, we should split some schools up into 5 or 10 different articles, depending on how many notable organizations they have. --- RockMFR 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, although I doubt such numbers would occur frequently.-- Hús  ö  nd  14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if a school had 5 to 10 different notable organizations, it would be considered notable as a whole. The crux of this matter is two-fold: the notability of the school (contested), and the notability of the marching band (agreed) – therefore you would expect the claim to notability to be the main focus of the article and as such placed in a more prominent position. Just a thought. I'm still out for deliberation. Bubba HoTep 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Taken from WP:SCHOOLS3: "2. The school has verifiably gained national recognition in an area such as curriculum (academics in U.S.), architecture, athletics, or extracurricular activities, or for its history or its program of instruction. For example, the school has won a science competition at the national level, or its athletic teams hold a nationwide record. - The band as well as the winterguard has many nationwide awards.  Taken from WP:SCHOOLS3 as well "3. The school has verifiably gained regional recognition in at least two of the areas mentioned in criterion #2."  - Easy. 1) In 2004-05 The baseball team was the semifinalist the class AAAAA State tournament. 2) in 2004-05 the basketball team was the 5-AAAAA Region champions. &mdash; Pbroks13 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:SCHOOL have never become policies. Wonder why.-- Hús  ö  nd  22:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you tell me, why should it be deleted? Pbroks13 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See nomination. The article asserts no notability for the school, the subject of the article.-- Hús  ö  nd  04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, it states the history, that its a magnet school, scores a higher average on the SAT and ACT than the rest of the nation, 1 of 5 magnet school in its county, basketball team region champs in the frist year of play, baseball state semifinalist in 1st year of play, marching band 7th in nation first year of competing in the national competition, as well as 4th, 2nd, 3rd every year they competed, and (although not stated, but soon to be), the winterguard was the Scholastic A DCI World Champions in 2004. How can you say that none of that is notable? Pbroks13 05:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The borderline between trivial and notable is at each one's own discretion. For me none of that information is encyclopedic. It's perfectly suited for the school's website which has the duty to provide that information, but not for Wikipedia which is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information that includes registries of all achievements of high school teams.-- Hús  ö  nd  05:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why not take every professional football and basketball team off wikipedia. You can find most of their information on ther own websites. Pbroks13 21:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; The page could use a history section. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't keep. Does not meet WP:SCHOOLS3 because no independent reliable sources are provided to verify the article's claims.  Lacking independent sources, it should not be a stand-alone article.  If it were to be kept, it would be in serious need of cleanup, anyway.  Redirect to Kennesaw or Cobb County is probably preferable to deletion. Shimeru 09:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree that the article needs continued work, but I also think there's potential for this article. I added a minor reference for the achievements for the band. I know high school articles will always be controversial, but WikiProject Schools is trying to improve their quality. --Jh12 11:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Schools3. Not even remotely notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Schools3, they are very notable. Please read my above post, (starts with Comment Taken from WP:SCHOOLS3:) Pbroks13 21:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Perhaps this article should have been prodded when is was less developed, but it is a clear keep as of now. I found some interesting, encyclopaedic, information while creating the Campus section and identified two design/construction articles I think that need creating as a result.  I have yet to see a single high school AfD that could be justified, especially in light of Jimbo's previous comment on the subject, since every one that I looked at had sufficient online information that was reliable and verifiable to edit the article to at least Start Class.--Hjal 17:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment---I'm the guy who kinda started trying to fix up the page and stuff, and I'm kind of new to this whole "articles for deletion" discussion thing...so I was just wondering if there was a time frame for stuff like this, and i just wanted to say thanks to all the people who have helped me with the page and to all of you guys who are making sure that Wikipedia articles are all legit and well made. CRD07 06:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Existence is not notability. There's nothing notable about this school: sure it exists, but what's notable about it ? The article doesn't say. Deeply sad that Wikipedia has been hijacked by the schools crowd. WMMartin 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * — WMMartin (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . User seems to be a likely single-purpose account used for AfD participation, may be WP:SOCK violation to avoid scrutiny, as good hand/bad hand account or for multiple voting. Alansohn 17:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm perturbed by the above comment, and particularly perturbed that the person who made it did not feel able to contact me directly. I would encourage him to "assume good faith" here and elsewhere. I have added a note about why I participate in AfD debates to my user-page, which I hope is useful. I have also added a comment to the above user's talk-page. The problem for me is that I feel that for a school to be notable it has to do something more than just exist and teach students. The two places where notability might most plausibly be asserted for this school are: (a) the fact that it's a magnet school, and (b) the supposedly unusual steelwork in the architecture. On (a) I feel that although the policy of magnet schools is notable, the individual schools so designated are not per se notable unless their teaching styles develop unique characteristics that are not general to all magnet schools. On (b) I feel that the reference from the "Steel Joist Institute" simply uses the school as an example of an architectural and construction technique, and does not assert any particular notability for the school building per se. On balance, therefore, I do not feel that notability is sufficiently clearly established. I hope this helps. Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information. WMMartin 18:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article is an excellent, encyclopedic article that makes explicit claims of notability per both WP:SCHOOL and per WP:SCHOOLS3, as noted above. Sources provided are relevant, reliable and verifiable. Nominator offers no standard by which this article fails to demonstrate notability, other than his knee-jerk rejection of this article, making it impossible to demonstrate that an objective standard has -- or has not -- been met. Alansohn 17:10, 14 January 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.