Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Oregon


 * 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 (non-admin closure) &mdash; Caknuck 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

List of high schools in Oregon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Should be deleted because does not meet Schools or Notability (organizations and companies) criteria. Many of these schools may be notable, but this seems to be an attempt at listing every single school in Oregon, and 95% of high schools do not meet the preceding criteria for notability. Tatonka79 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Tatonka79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete- Fails WP:NOT ChrisLamb 01:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Its only failing compared to other list of schools articles is the number of redlinks, and that's not a failing for this type of article. Schools is defunct and not valid as a rationale for deletion. I'm also noting this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools for those with more familiarity with the subject to chime in. —C.Fred (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I was hoping for an unbiased vote - not now if we get mostly school contributors...Tatonka79 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Tatonka79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment It's not a vote or a straight headcount, its a debate that attempts to reach a community consensus. The closing admin will weigh all the arguments, not just the "votes". Latr, Katr 04:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree with Katr. How could you expect to have a credible decision process, without inviting those most experienced with/devoted to school-related articles to express their opinions? This comment makes me wonder about the legitimacy of the nomination. Tatonka, why would you want to exclude (or avoid informing) those WikiProjects? -Pete 08:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can't imagine how the entire Oregon educational system could be non-notable, so a list of its high schools seems quite appropriate.  Someguy1221 03:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Stable, well-maintained, complete, and properly disambiguated list of articles belonging to a legitimate encyclopedic topic with broad interest, and not a collection of indiscriminate information. Notability of each high school should be addressed in individual Afds. Latr, Katr 04:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful per Categories, lists, and series boxes, and notability such as mentioned above cannot apply to lists. Nobody in reliable source land writes in depth articles on "List of XXXXX" as at least I've never seen an article in USA Today titled List of top-division football clubs in CONMEBOL countries (which is FL class). This is a problem with all lists, and if that is a concern it should be addressed at WP:LIST not by deleting every list. I also find it odd/strange that the nominator would 1) assume unbiased opinions will come from WP:SCHOOL folk, and 2) that the nominator would not expect those people to participate when referencing a page from within that project. Aboutmovies 04:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The notability argument made by the nominator is misguided.  The notability of the schools is not a reason to delete this article (unless they are all not notable, which is not the case); it is, obviously, a potential reason to AfD the articles on the schools the nominator feels are not notable.  I completely disagree with the argument that the list is a collection of indiscriminate information.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe that the spirit of WP:N can still be applied to lists.  As in, is this grouping notable?  Are there sources on "Oregon high schools" in general?  Probably.  Someguy1221 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply The notability criterion can definitely be applied to lists.  However, I don't think the nominator is arguing that Oregon high schools collectively are non-notable (such an argument would be absurd).  The nominator is arguing that this list should be deleted because several items on the list are non-notable.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can apply the WP:N guideline to this list if you want, but even if you do, failing WP:N is not a reason for deletion under the deletion criteria. - T-75| talk | contribs 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I can't imagine any reason to delete, and haven't heard a good reason advanced here. Individual schools don't have to be notable to be worthy of inclusion on a list - notability concerns devoting an entire article to them. The WP:NOT arguments (info and directory) do not apply directly to this kind of list. And Cacophony's argument refutes the "category" argument. -Pete 08:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Keep per too many reasons to list that are already listed by others above. - T-75| talk | contribs 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm one who is thoroughly against lists, but I feel like this is a place where its needed as some of the schools in that list dont have articles. Since High Schools are considered notable, I think the list addresses the schools who currently dont have an article.   Once all the schools get articles, replace this list with a category Corpx 04:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Redundant with Category:High schools in Oregon. -- Kesh 05:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am concerned that the nominator is violating WP:POINT.  User:Tatonka79 has fewer than 50 edits, the vast majority of which are on this AfD, discussing whether or not to AfD this article, and to place notability tags on individual high school articles.  The account, at this time, clearly fits the definition of a single purpose account.  The reasons given for the nomination make me suspect that it is possible the nominator is trying to make the point that those individual high school articles should be deleted (and thus violating WP:POINT.  Because User:Tatonka79 is new and because it pisses me off when people toss around unfounded accusations of WP:POINT in AfD discussions, I am not accusing User:Tatonka79 of violating WP:POINT (yet).  I want User:Tatonka79 to show me that he/she is not violating WP:POINT by responding to this comment.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not redundant with the category because it contains many schools for which there is not a Wikipedia article. See WP:LIST and Categories%2C_lists%2C_and_series_boxes for why this argument is not valid. Cacophony 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be easily remedied by creating stub articles for the redlinked schools. What advantage do we have of keeping a list purely for naming schools we don't even have articles for? -- Kesh 05:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually very useful for standardization. Do you know how many Lincoln High Schools there are? On several ocasions I have had to merge duplicate school articles due to multiple people creating an article for the same school. If they exist in the List then that should reduce those instances by a person searching for their school, and then finding the proper name per naming guidelines instead of making up what they want. And why make a stub that will just be deleted for notability? Aboutmovies 06:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Aboutmovies is a highly active and productive member. If he's found the list useful and informative, that means a lot to me. -Pete 08:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep ... sigh. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:14, 28
 * It's interesting. Some of you are implying these comments above list several reasons for high schools in general to all be notable.  I don't see a reason listed that supports the idea that all "high schools are considered notable".  One can make this assumption and state the point till they're blue in the face, but where is your reasoning?  Per WP:Schools:


 * 1) The school has been the focus of multiple non-trivial  published works whose source is independent of the school itself.  This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, television documentaries,  and reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
 * 2) The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction, or for its success at the national level in extracurricular activities such as art or athletics. For example, the school has been recognized with a notable national award, has won a science competition at the national level, or its athletic teams hold a nationwide record.  Or, the school has gained recognition at the regional level on more than one occasion or in multiple such areas.
 * 3) The school has gained national recognition by virtue of its architecture or history. For example, the buildings used by some English schools have been classified by English Heritage as listed buildings and are included on the Images of England website, while some American schools are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Many schools have published histories. Details will be found in one of the online catalogues such as Worldcat or, for UK schools, COPAC.

I wonder how many of these commentors bothered to read these. Like I said before, many of the above commentors appear to spend 90-95% of their time creating and editing school-related articles, so of course they're going to defend the idea that all high schools are notable. I don't see much reasoning from any of the above comments, mainly exasperated, emotional comments (watch out with your comments Pablo, you are coming across as very hostile, many users have been banned before for that). Tatonka79 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read the notablity guidlines numerous times and are well aware of the critera, I would suggest you do the same. Especially the main notability guideline where in the lead section it states:
 * These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles.
 * So, for notability, I think you are confussed. Individual schools may not be notable. That's when you AFD that school. For lists, again, you are not going to get sources for notability. If you think this should change for list notability, please go to WP:LIST and discuss it there. This is not the place. Aboutmovies 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tatonka, I have also read the general notability guidelines many times, and read the Schools notability guideline prior to commenting here. AboutMovies' analysis is completely correct: the notability of Oregon schools collectively is the only notability concern for this list, not the notability of individual schools.
 * You say that "many of the above commentors appear to spend 90-95% of their time creating and editing school-related articles." Assuming for the moment that this assertion is even relevant, is it true? Absolutely not. I very rarely edit school-related articles, and I know from extensive experience collaborating with them that AboutMovies, T-75, Katr, and Cacophony work on a very wide range of topics as well. A quick glance at Pablo's edit history reveals a wide range there as well. So can you name a single editor here who has even 30% of their edits in school-related articles? I think not. Again, it wouldn't matter even if you could - an editor's opinion is no less important simply because he has an interest in a certain area.
 * Finally, regarding Pablo: I don't detect the hostility you allege, but even if he were being hostile, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt - dealing with poorly-thought-out attempts to delete valid content can be stressful, and we're not always at our best in this sort of debate. A blocking threat, however, does seem hostile, in this context. -Pete 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Tatonka keeps citing Schools, but as noted above, that guideline is deprecated, and thus moot. Is there a current guideline you can link to and base your notability criteria on? Latr, Katr 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not only is the WP:Schools guideline no longer active, even if it was, it is only a guideline and NOT a policy. All of WP:N are guidelines and should never be used to establish whether or not an article should be deleted.  In fact, WP:N is NOT a reason for an Afd per the deletion policy. - T-75| talk | contribs  17:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The list organizes schools by county and has generated strong consensus of notability. Alansohn 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a good list and serves as useful purpose and per Theophilus75. -- DS1953 talk  05:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - It's useful is not a valid reason to keep the article. -- Kesh 06:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:USEFUL isn't even a guideline, let alone a policy. - T-75| talk | contribs 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. EagleFan 14:27, 2 July 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.