Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottsburg Senior 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Scottsburg Senior High School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable school with no Reliable, Independent Sources. 1друг (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes the school notable Rondolinda (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources. Not notable school. Trap133 (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. See Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 12:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete There only sources in the article are a dead primary link and an extremely trivial name drop. There's nothing else out there from what I can tell except more of the same either. Just some WP:MILL news story about a student from the school getting a scholarship. So, clearly this isn't a notable school. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, as with any other secondary school in the western world. In this case we have an unreferenced, article. That makes it a stub, with refs it becomes a well written Start. I see three editors who like to delete school articles. One who bases the vote on their inability to instantly find an on line reference. We need to consider paper references. We have another that tries to apply WP:MILL as if were member of a boyband. We have a third who likes to use a POV stock phrase, with no evidence of where he has researched. Our task is to evaluate whether evidence will exist- not whether we or the editors have found it.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you please share 3 indepth, independent sources please. 1друг (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you, tell us about the details of your search of libraries in Indiana that backs up your assertion that sources do not exist? Status quo does carry weight on Wikipedia. Burden is on you to show that sources do not exist, and you absolutely cannot do that without a search of offline sources. So how's the weather in Scottsburg this time of year. I doubt ClemRutter can get there from Britain, and I can't afford a cross country trip right now. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT SOURCES BE ONLINE. Never has-been; never will be. 209.63.121.20 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, because "You can't prove there aren't offline sources about the rats that live under my house. So they must be notable" is a totally reasonable, guideline based way to approach this. I find it rather ironic that people like ClemRutter get all salty by someone applying WP:MILL in their vote but then their perfectly fine with nonsensical reasoning like that. At the end of the day, having WP:THREE sources available is an extremely low bar that anything notable should be able to pass. Otherwise, it's not worth keeping. Especially if all the keep voters can muster up instead is "keep because it's not a boyband." --Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The claim that sources exist without even telling us what these sources are should be given no credibility at all. When we have an article that is so weak that it cannot even tell us when the institution was founded I see little reason to keep the article. Asserting that sources exist is not enough, people need to actually state what these sources are. Verrifiaility means that the sources need to be found and used, not a mere handwave given to try to convince us the sources exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Hold on as I look for sources. I found one from Bowling Green, Kentucky in 1990. It took me only two minutes Here it is. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: Here is another from 1949. It is an AP article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I have found a total of two sources with minimal effort. WP:AUD is clearly satisfied. WP:GNG will also likely be satisfied if I do more searching. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, I have not checked Indiana at all. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have a third. Also, it appears that the school had a state championship title in 1989 or 1990. I should check using those key words. That will be my last comment. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Last source. This one is from Indianapolis in 1949. I think I can safely say that WP:GNG are also met. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you not actually incorporating the sources and information you are finding into the article?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They don't need to per WP:NEXIST. I'll do it anyway though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many AfDs I've seen closed as keep because people found some sources, but then they aren't ever added to the articles. It way sucks when that happens. Whatever WP:NEXIST says I don't think it's in the spirit of Wikipedia to just turn AfDs into references lists that are divorced from the articles the references are about. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Interesting, Can you share how did you find these sources? I want to learn this.  Analysing your sources  This is nowhere indepth about the school.  Protest event, not considerable.  Its related to WKU just a name of playground doesn't make the school notable.  This is again the same story which is not even independent. None of the source is even near to passing WP:ORG. 1друг (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I found them because I have access to Newspapers.com. I clipped them. Why would a protest event not be enough to make the school notable? The Indianapolis News is most certainly independent because it is several counties away. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, what do you think?. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging people who you know will probably go with keep no matter what really comes off like campigning. Especially with someone as clearly bias and one sided about this as Necrothesp is. Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot t ping . Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I've looked around and found WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which isn't a policy in itself, but points to a RfC that determined that Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. I'll take that as a basis.
 * Going from there, I must admit that sources apparently exist, as shown by above. However, those that are of good quality (and not local, in case of the Indiana one) are exclusively about the protest event. In that case, I would argue in favour of finding more sources and then creating an article about that event. There is, in my opinion, not enough WP:SIGCOV about the school itself.
 * Now, I actually believe we can find several more local newspaper articles with similar coverage as "school X hosts local sports event" (e.g. that), "school X wishes graduates all the best", "school X secured municipal funding as expected". In fact, I believe we can find these sort of newspaper sources for just about any school in the Western World (which basically is @'s point). For example, I have several newspaper articles at home which I cut from our local newspaper, because my classmates where mentioned in it or sth. Thus, I believe we can find sufficient coverage of this quality to guarantee that just about any school satisfies the notability guidelines. But does it really? Because then we would have come to my original point, the RfC, which states that mere existence is not a reason for notability. And I agree with that, I wouldn't believe my own former school is notable.
 * I believe that the strike is a notable event, but that notability is not contagious. If we had at least two more things that connect to the school, I would be convinced and change to keep. For example, the unsourced "performing arts" section claims several wins in championships for the school. Combine that with the strike, and voilà, I believe we'd have notability for the school. However, I could not find sources for these. "TriState Circuit Championship 2011" for example gives no results in my google search, and I could also find nothing about the others. @, maybe you can find something with your newspaper access?

--LordPeterII (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be down for an article about the protest if the necessary references can be found. As it sounds semi-notable. Just on it's own and not in relation to making the school notable also. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I found two new sources, but they aren't very in-depth. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I found another source from Illinois, but it is about the protests again. There was also another source in Indianapolis about a student injured in a school play in 1968, but I cannot find it. . Per WP:AUD, don't we only need one regional source? Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My opinion was sought, so I will reiterate. Getting personal certainly does not help the debate. We at WP:WPSCHOOL follow WP:GNG where it is clear that notable means' it has been noted', not that this is 'exceptional'. It is convenient to define multiple- as 3, as two would be open to debate. It is inconceivable in North America, or Europe that a publicly funded institution would not leave an significant audit trail as it was being monitored at multiple levels by accountants and politicians health authorities etc. Then we have the architects and building contractors who will show case their new work. On line they will leave reports.
 * As you rightly said I have not attempted to do a site visit. So if I can get a little help from my colleagues in North America. I can give you a few clues. My first attempt at a google  gave me //www.in.gov/core/results.html?query=scotsburg+high+school&collection=global-collection&profile=_default&start_rank=11 A spelling mistake but 5000 results ans what I need the core Indiana web site. Just taking that address and there is an inbuilt search- type in Scottsburg High School and I had 3000+ references, mostly to pdf. These are goldmines - look at Graduation Counts and from the numbers we have complete information so we write a demographics and academics section.
 * For a AfD we have to prove that there is no information available to verify the facts that an editor may write in future, I am not claiming that all 3000+ will give the school significant coverage... but we have done our job of showing masses of sources do exist. A lot of US article like to write sporting achievement and glancing through google looking for a .gov address I saw plenty of pages that could be used to reference those (or not) as well.ClemRutter (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does the whole thing about coverage not being trivial name drops say that it has to be "exceptional" instead? Let alone where have I or anyone else that has voted deleted and discussed the type of coverage we think needs to exist for notability used the word "exceptional"? Also, specific people were pinged and you were perfectly fine with things being personal when you said I was treating schools like boy bands etc. etc. So, really, spare us all the fake concern about it. Adamant1 (talk)
 * Delete the fake concern then- not my best sentence.!ClemRutter (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't get it. Perfectly notable school. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How so? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:HEY effort by and other additions to the history of the school meet WP:GNG. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2021 (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.