Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir John A Macdonald Junior 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, defaulting to Keep, references added, disagreeement over whether they establish notability. Davewild (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir John A Macdonald Junior High School

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

PROD was removed by User:Jerry without an explanation, so I'm bringing it to AfD. No assertion of notability has been made for this school and, per search and discussion on the talk page, it does not appear that it can be. It is unreferenced and orphaned article, which is not a reason to be deleted, but indicates a lack of notability when other factors are taken into account. It is unlikely to make a plausible redirect. As it is a Junior High School, as opposed to High School, it does not fall under the "inherently notable" guidelines of any of the WP:SCHOOL proposals. Cheers, CP 07:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no real assertion of notability. Just a garden variety Junior High by the looks of it.  Lankiveil (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment. There seems to be a concensus that high schools are usually notable and primary schools usually aren't notable. What's the story with Junior High's?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just added a bunch of info and refs, I'm leaning towards keep at the moment. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Among the references I don't see any notability. They have a health program, but who doesn't?  Nothing here sets the school apart from others.  Yes, the school is named after someone, but most are; etc. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per AliveFreeHappy. Also, I would have appreciated a courtesy notification that my name was mentioned in an AFD nomination, which was probably not necessary.... "another editor removed"... would have worked.  JERRY talk contribs 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply And I would have appreciated a courtesy explanation as to why you removed the PROD. Since I could not point to an explanation as to why the PROD was removed, I had to point to a person. Cheers, CP 01:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind my name being used, I just think it is reasonable to expect to be notified in such case. I objected to the prod because I do not think that school article deletions are non-controversial, which is the purpose of prod.  All school article deletions seem to receive debate with people on both sides of the issues, so prod for any school is highly unlikely to succeed, hence the need for the AFD process. JERRY talk contribs 15:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - now has the multiple, independent, verifiable sources needed to meet WP:N thanks to AliveFree Happy. TerriersFan (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per TerriersFan. Kudos AliveFree Happy! Noroton (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, still no real assertion of notability. But it's a nice thing they fight sugar and tobacco. All schools should. Greswik (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, still no real assertion of notability. But it's a nice thing they fight sugar and tobacco. All schools should. Greswik (talk) 17:36, 28 December 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.