Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wake Forest-Rolesville 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 speedy keep. If deletion is still desired, then the articles should be, by clear consensus established below and the fact that schools are notable for different reasons, AfD'd separately. Non-admin closure. MuZemike ( talk ) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wake Forest-Rolesville High School

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

unreferenced articles about a public high and middle schools. Article quality varies from pretty good to horrible mess. Subject lacks notability. Articles consist largely of lists of sports and classes available failing to establish why these schools are notable. Rtphokie (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to the school district(s) as is the usual consensus for such articles. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and renominate separately if you must. There is generally no consensus on what to do with school articles. Some think that only the most notable ones should be included, some think all should be included, some think all should be merged, and some think that it depends on the situation. It is not at all obvious that all these school articles deserve the same treatment, and a bundled nomination like this will only end in a complete trainwreck. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Sjakkalle. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep my understanding is that all "high schools" are considered notable though I agree taht at least a reasonable attempt to provide references should be made. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, not discounting the possibility of selectively relisting some seperately. High schools are rarely outright deletion candidates, and even the nom admits these are of unequal article quality. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close Not all of these school articles are the same in quality, so why bundle them? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep/Close Most High schools are notable.  Most can be referenced with a little searching.  Definately shouldn't be deleted in a bundle.  If any are not just un-referenced, but actually unreferencable they chould be nominated separately.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural KeepClose this malformed nomination and nominate separately. Most high schools have been found to be notable in past AFDs, and hould not have been bundled with middle schools. Unlike articles should not be nominated in mass, because it becomes impossible to !vote in a way that is comprehensible if one does not agree with the deletion of all.
 * (edit conflict) Beat me to it. Closing as a speedy keep now. Articles warranting deletion can be AfD'd separately. MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment They all have similar problems so I thought I'd save time by grouping them. It is not a matter of all them having to either go or stay, if there are exceptions they can be handled but if editors prefer to comment on them individually, so be it.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:15, 10 October 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.