Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parker academy


 * 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. Consensus is that, despite being a small private school, it qualifies as a high school (presumed notable) and enough sources exist to verify the article's content. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Parker academy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A non-notable private academy for special needs students. No non-trivial third party sources (google and gnews don't turn up anything), article ammounts to little more than a press-release or ad. Article would probably qualify under G11 if it weren't about a school. 2 says you, says two 23:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per 2. Not for this encyclopedia.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. All high schools are notable. The article appears to be reasonably neutral. — Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All indications are that it is authorized to grant a high school diploma, so it qualifies as a high school. I'm imagining John Wayne saying, "Not for this encyclopedia, pilgrim!" (from the film Verifiable Grit) Mandsford (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - contains a high school and sources are available from which the page can be expanded; a much better option than deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Content is Neutral and no longer in violation of G11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchie11791 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator's comment The contributor who rewrote the page's content did a fantastic job cutting the POV and spam. That being said, I'm highly concerned about the listed references:
 * 1) I have an issue counting GNIS as a reference at all, it only provides the GPS coordinates of the building itself.
 * 2) The NH state page for Concord School district is not non-trivial, merely lists contact information for the school.
 * 3) The IES page has some great statistics about the school, but nothing that isn't given for many other schools in the country, and nothing showing non-trivial coverage.
 * 4) The program approval is great for the purposes of WP:V and expanding facts, but is not enough to stand on its own to prove notability.
 * I was unable to find any other sources that didn't fall into this realm, no non-trivial coverage even in local newspaper archives or in journals. While I agree that all public high schools (and possibly by extension charter schools) are notable based on their importance in the local community, and that local non-trivial coverage can almost always be found (I know there's a WP policy that states this, but I can't think of it of the top of my head), I do not believe that this necessarily applies to private schools. Although many private schools are notable based on non-trivial coverage, historical significance, or other reasons, I just don't see that here: it's a relatively new school, and while it may have an effective and valued program to it's students, that alone doesn't justify an article, we create articles on subjects where notability is established to exist not where it might exist. Their program may be notable in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until that time it should be either deleted or redirected to the school district or municipality with a note added there. When their program receives coverage, I have no issue with recreation, and likewise if anyone can find print coverage that isn't showing up online, I'm all for keeping. 2 says you, says two  16:13, 29 December 2009 (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.