Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ware Junior 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 keep. I appreciate the passion that Curb Safe Charmer has shown in this discussion, but the consensus here is to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Ware Junior Senior High School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per this discussion, the school fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. See also this discussion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, typically these are allowed to stay despite the GNG. I once tried to fight these and learned it was futile and thus I feel it should be applied fairly if we are to do it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this just a generalisation or did you assess this particular case? please see WP:OUTCOMESBASED, which reminds us that "schools are usually kept" is not a valid argument. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You may dislike my viewpoint on this but here goes. Schools, especially secondary schools are notable within their communities. I used to nominate for AFD Robinson Malls from the Philippines cause how is a mall by itself notable? It wasn't until I got there and realized the impact and truly how notable they were in the context of the local community. I had to concede that while from my corner of the world it may not seem all that notable to the communities there it is. We aren't here just for the giants of notability but also the notable of those communities. It's noted this school is part of the National Historic Register of Places? That alone is enough to pass notability. I'd suggest a little liberalism in your idea of notability. The article isn't promoting anything, and doesn't harm anything. I see no reason to remove it from the rectory of knowledge we are compiling! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . I don't dislike your viewpoint, but was asking what it is about this specific article that led you to believe it should be kept. If your reasoning is that it passes WP:NBUILDING then that's fine, but you hadn't said that. There's nothing in the article saying that it is a national heritage site, though. Re the reasoning in your final sentence, WP:HARMLESS and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not strong arguments. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG. I am short on time so I will just give examples of sources:     (though this last source is marginal coverage that might or might not belong in a current article). All of these are substantial coverage and this is without any sort of sports coverage or noting of the school's test results which is verifiable information but less helpful in establishing notability. This high school is very old as seen by the first source and so I think someone more interested in this topic could likely find further coverage, but there is clearly enough to be considered notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would nominate this school. WP:BEFORE could not possibly have been done. This school easily crosses the historical low bar we've always had for schools plus it is a contributing property to a NRHP historic district. The nomination form for that historic district is linked in the district article and has more than enough details on its own to merit a keep without anything else. It's highly doubtful that any high school in the US or Britain will ever be deleted at AfD. And I'm sorry, but SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly indicates that. Words written out somewhere do not define notability; consensus does. It's the consensus now, and has been for a looong time, that a diploma granting school that exists is notable. It's much closer to WP:GEOFEAT than NORG. John from Idegon (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OLDSUBJECT for a reminder that notability is not established by how long a thing has existed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's my assessment of each reference, either in the current version of the article or cited by Barkeep49 above:
 * {| class=wikitable

! Source || Significant? || Independent? || Reliable? || Secondary? || Pass/Fail || Notes ! colspan=5| Total qualifying sources || 0 || There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
 * + style="text-align: center;" | Analysis of references
 * usnews || ❌ || ❌ || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || Listing; data on exam results etc. presumably provided by the school
 * maxpreps || ❌ || ? || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || School baseball team results
 * 1994 guide to highschools || ❌ || ❌ || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || just a listing, data presumably provided by the school or school board
 * Ware River News || ✅ || ❌ || ✅ || ❌ || ❌  || Local newspaper article about appointment of new head teacher and deputy head. Interview. Connected people talking about themselves and the school.
 * masslive 1 || ❌ || ✅ || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || Someone from the school attended a meeting
 * masslive 2 || ❌ || ❌ || ✅ || ❌  || ❌  || Superintendent wants to continue her role
 * 1899 annual report || ❌ || ✅ || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || Proves that the school existed in 1899
 * School offers firefighting course || ❌ || ❌  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ ||
 * Robots || ❌ || ❌  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || School bought some robots for use in teaching computer science; likely based on press release
 * wbur || ❌ || ❌  || ❌  || ❌  || ❌ || Radio interview with two girls from the school
 * telegram || ❌ || ❌  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ ||  School football coach talks about season
 * masslive 3 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ✅  || ❌ || article about baseball player that attended the school in the 1940s
 * gazettenet || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Review of book about baseball players from the town; mentions one attended the school
 * The North Adams Transcript || || || || || || Subscription required - awaiting Wikilibrary access
 * masslive 4 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Headmaster spoke at meeting
 * masslive 5 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Superintendent speaks at school board meeting about gun control
 * Robots || ❌ || ❌  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || School bought some robots for use in teaching computer science; likely based on press release
 * wbur || ❌ || ❌  || ❌  || ❌  || ❌ || Radio interview with two girls from the school
 * telegram || ❌ || ❌  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ ||  School football coach talks about season
 * masslive 3 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ✅  || ❌ || article about baseball player that attended the school in the 1940s
 * gazettenet || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Review of book about baseball players from the town; mentions one attended the school
 * The North Adams Transcript || || || || || || Subscription required - awaiting Wikilibrary access
 * masslive 4 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Headmaster spoke at meeting
 * masslive 5 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Superintendent speaks at school board meeting about gun control
 * gazettenet || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Review of book about baseball players from the town; mentions one attended the school
 * The North Adams Transcript || || || || || || Subscription required - awaiting Wikilibrary access
 * masslive 4 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Headmaster spoke at meeting
 * masslive 5 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Superintendent speaks at school board meeting about gun control
 * masslive 4 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Headmaster spoke at meeting
 * masslive 5 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Superintendent speaks at school board meeting about gun control
 * masslive 5 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Superintendent speaks at school board meeting about gun control
 * masslive 5 || ❌ || ✅  || ✅  || ❌  || ❌ || Superintendent speaks at school board meeting about gun control
 * }
 * I would be keen to hear how and  believe any of these meet the WP:GNG criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already said that I believe that all the sources I provided except the telegraph are significant coverage. You disagree but there's the rub. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , what do the sources on the article have to do with the question at hand? You are confusing AfD with AfC. It is not the article that is or isn't notable - it's the subject. So why are you wasting others time with your (faulty) analysis of the existing sources when I've argued there is a source not mentioned in your review that satisfies GNG on it's own without any other sources? And what exactly did you do for WP:BEFORE? It's policy it's required and it's clear you didn't do it. Your checklist analysis is nothing but a waste of other editor's time. Your analysis is not determinate of meeting GNG. That is determined by consensus founded in discussions, not by pretty pictures. Whether an individual article is worthy of the encyclopedia is determined by consensus not your interpretation of policy. I'd strongly suggest you withdraw this. It appears quite possible if not likely you've brought this in retaliation for the overruling of your initial faulty rejection of a perfectly acceptable article. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I brought this to AfD because WP:DRAFTIFY says "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD. I did my WP:BEFORE check as part of my AfC review. The district is a historic place, but it doesn't automatically follow that everything in the district is notable (notability is not automatically inherited). This form of analysis of sources is exactly per WP:ORGCRIT, which WP:NSCHOOL says are the relevant criteria, so I don't see how it is faulty or a waste of time?


 * What is this source you mention that isn't referenced in the article but clearly infers notability? Meeting WP:GEOFEAT would be a good justification for 'keep' if it can be substantiated. I have searched the National Register of Historic Places and the school is not listed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I hadn't looked closely at the table before. While I can see not counting the mass live refs as significant I am having more troubles understanding how they're not secondary. They are reports of a school board meeting by a freelance reporter. It's not an interview like wbur. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Barkeep. Identifying primary and secondary sources isn't straight forward. WP:Identifying and using primary sources is the best place to go for clarication. In the case of the masslive sources, it is actually clear cut: a primary source was a source that was created at about the same time as the event, regardless of the source's contents. The reporter being there at the time, listening to what was said at the meeting or writing down what an interviewee said to them makes those primary sources. If the reporter had been working off a report of the meeting taken by someone else and later provided their own interpretation and analysis of what was discussed then they would be secondary sources. A secondary source is always based on a primary source, so if thinking something might be secondary, it helps to ask oneself what primary source it was based on. If it isn't based on another source, then it itself is primary. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep More than enough here to justify that this is a notable school. It's quite odd that the nominator points to this discussion in the nomination as his or her justification for claiming that the article fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. There was no consensus that the article fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG in that discussion. In fact, there was no support for that position other than by Curb Safe Charmer. Curb Safe Charmer didn't think the subject should have been accepted as an article. Other's disagreed, and Barkeep49 pointed out that if Curb Safe Charmer disagreed with his or her acceptance of the article then he should take it to AFD. I also suggest that this nom be withdrawn. Meters (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * With hindsight, I shouldn't have written "per this dicussion" in my nomination. It was important that I linked to the talk page discussion as background, but I didn't mean to imply that there was any consensus there on notability - clearly the opposite was true. I have amended the nomination accordingly. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying and striking. Linking to the previous discussion is fine. Meters (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.