Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauldin 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 delete. W.marsh 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mauldin High School

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable Seinfreak37 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. High schools are harmless. Besides, keeping the article means that we have a stub to start with if the school suddenly finds itself in the news. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to an article about the locality or school district. The proposed guideline WP:SCHOOLS3 says "A school may be best handled in a separate article if it is the principal subject of multiple reliable independent non-trivial  published works. If it is not, then it is likely sufficient information to expand the article does not yet exist, and any verifiable information might best be merged and redirected to an article about the locality or school district in which the school resides." Edison 00:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The above keep arguments are nonsense. Creating an article because someday the topic might be notable is not acceptable. If that standard was followed, there would be no notability guideline because there is always the possibility that something might become notable. That's why we don't write about things until they actually are defined as such. Soltak | Talk 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and only recreate the article if the school for some reason becomes notable. --Nick Dowling 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete harmless is not N. future use as a stub in case justifies every person or object in the world. DGG 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't usually vote one way or another on schools, but this particular article is so bad that even if this is an extremely notable school that it's vital we have an article on, we'd do better deleting this and starting from scratch. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inadequate references, and notability is not proven. WMMartin 13:20, 29 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.