Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natrona County 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Natrona County High School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is a stub that fails both WP:BRANCH and is only locally known. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the results of the recent RFC on secondary school notability, notability can be established for high schools by "reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media." This is the case with Natrona County High School. WP:BRANCH itself does not seem to be applicable, but the section below WP:BRANCH about schools refers to "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education" whereas this school appears to provide mainstream education; it is not merely a support to mainstream education. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 *  Delete : A school isn't notable just because it exists, to allow every individual school to have it's own Wikipedia page is ridiculous and is outside the scope of what an encyclopedia should be. It's a tiny school in a tiny town, how is that notable? ThatGirlTayler (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Sorry, you don't get to vote in an AfD that you started. It's assumed that if you nominated the article, you want it deleted. John from Idegon (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are replying to me, that is a straw man. My position is not that the school is notable merely because it exists, nor that every school should have an article. My position is that there are adequate sources for notability according to the most recent WP opinion. There are 2,130 Gnews results and 108,000 results in a Google search. Also, the building is on the National Register of Historic Places. Overall, this is more than enough for notability. The article could be expanded and references improved, but the school is notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It's been covered in secondary sources, it's on the National Register of Historic Places, and has famous alumni such as Dick Cheney, Lance Deal, and Matthew Shepard. There aren't many more qualifications a school can have to be considered notable. Imalawyer (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a secondary school which has received more than enough coverage to demonstrate notability and which is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. AusLondonder (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Secondary schools may not always be notable, but buildings on the National Register of Historic Places certainly are. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep My read of the RfC mentioned by is that local coverage in RSes meeting GNG is a criteria for keeping.  Searching find plenty of local news coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The scope and breadth of sources about the school establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. The article is plainly not a stub, and the nominator's rationale provides no substantive basis for deletion. This is exactly the sort of unresearched, unanalyzed nomination that the recent RFC rejected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 18:57, 14 March 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.