Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quartz Hill High School (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per nom withdraw.  D u s t i talk to me 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Quartz Hill High School
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The usual bog standard school - utterly unverified stuff written by people with first hand knowledge and the normal target of IP vandalism adding alleged porn stars to the alumni. Docg 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, source, and clean up as necessary. High schools are notable and vandalism is no excuse to delete. I don't have time to edit right now, but Google searches show that the 2 athletes listed as notable alumni and at least one sports title are readily verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Edit history indicates that the nominator removed the aborted school attack due to a dead link. It showed up prominently in Google News. From a more direct search: Replacement sources are easy to find . Nominator should try harder next time. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * update: The planned school attack section has been restored with replacement sources. It needs an update since the plotters are now jailed. I'll fix it later today if another editor doesn't get it first. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Keep. All of the high schools in the Antelope Valley Union High School District appear to have articles, and this may well be the best of the lot. (Lancaster High School (Lancaster, California), which consists mainly of a schedule of class periods, could use some attention, though.) Deor (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It definitely needs cleanup, for example, the "Activities" section can probably be deleted. And of course it needs to be checked to ensure that it's not getting "eyewitness" information added to it by students.  But it clearly passes notability guidelines.  Why was this even nominated a second time?  The first AfD in 2005 was a speedy keep...  Is there some reason we really need to be re-discussing this? --Elonka 13:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to schools via that silly "notability" thingy, however, this article like most others of its kind has proven unmaintainable. Unsourced target for vandalism.  Basically, not  very encyclopedic and not worth the hastle of maintaining.--Docg 13:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. There is almost always suitable sourced material available for high schools-- and our practice is to consistently accept them rather than argue about each one, since it will almost certainly be notable. If we removed articles as vandal targets we'd remove most movie stars and musicians and the president of the US. One thing we do effectively here is vandal fighting. DGG (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A 40+ year old high school is usually presumed to be notable, and this one certainly seems to be. Poor writing and vandalism are not deletion reasons.--Fabrictramp (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough.


 * O —— The Unknown Hitchh  ik  er  15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nominating articles about high schools doesn't lead to a better encyclopedia. It just contributes to people getting burned out faster than they would otherwise. --Eastmain (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, close as keep because the result is obvious. But really, the keep arguments are pretty crappy. "A 40 year old high school is notable"? No, actually where 40 years is not remarkable - nearly all are. And the last argument is silly, and invites me to respond that keeping unsourced vandalism targets just burns people out even faster. But whatever.--Docg 16:26, 31 March 2008 (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.