465:- Personally, I think someone who is voting purely based upon writing which has been authored by Jimbo should take a step back and think about what it is they are actually voting, and why they are voting (keep arguement "per Jimbo's ruling" is ridiculous in the sense that we all have autonomy and we all have the capability of making our own educated decision about the future of articles, and this more so applies to high school articles where the notability criteria is most controversial). I do personally agree with the comments made by Narson and I think dismissing his opinion is outright rude. Although the article hasn't asserted notability in its current state, in my own experience of high school articles (I have authored several to a reasonable state which I believe are sufficient to warrant their existance), they all likely do have notability in some form, it just requires someone to put some work in and find the sources; I don't think this article is any exception to the rule, and the rule certainly shouldn't be based and defended by something 1 person, however highly they are regarded (and whom I have much respect for), wrote. I can understand Narson's viewpoint, but unfortunately high school notability is one which I tend to defend in favour for inclusion.
308:
job to tell me how notable it is. If the people who so vigorously defend schools from AFDs acctually spent their time doing the supposedly two seconds of work to verify the notability and put the refs in the article, we would all save ourselves this rigamarole. (And while I respect Jimbo, not every word he utters everywhere should be immediatly written down and accepted as strictest law. He is not the messiah, he is a very groovy boy. Even he gets the right to just, you know, talk. Without the awed hush and booming voice.)
894:
long, drawn out AfD's. NOw as to your question; "Should this be listed at WP:SCHOOL?" My answer, which is my opinion, is YES. Now, a proposal has been made to end this silliness and make a guideline to stop wasting everyone's time, but this proposal has not become a guideline yet, because of minor disagreements in wording an extended policy to other classes of schools that are in the same proposal. So it stands as a
502:
being), then I felt that to have been rude towards someone with their own comment. You don't need to convince me of the notability stance - I agree with it myself, albeit maybe not as strongly and maybe not for all the same reasons; it was difficult for me not to interpret it any other way when you start a vote with "Keep per Jimbo's ruling". Anyhow, the likely outcome will be keep which I would not argue with.
898:, because policy/ guideline or not, this is what actually happens. Since we know it happens, we should avoid the drama and just acknowledge that all high schools can be assumed to be notable if they actually exist, and their articles should be kept if they are more than just a non-informational listing-type sub-stub. This article and school meet that de facto standard with no problems.
401:- Pretty much all high school articles brought to AFD are kept, as they are eventually established as being notable. Deletion is definitely not necessary, as if a school is not notable the article on it should be re-directed to the appropriate district article. I have done a search and found some sources which while not substantial are a start:
307:
No, I am merely accepting that some people seem to believe that being a high school is a claim to notability and that no claim is being made beyond that. Please don't try and shoe horn arguments into my mouth that I didn't make. It isn't my job to tell an article how notable it is, it is the articles
842:
per (oh my gosh, I thought we already hashed this out) the overwhelming concensus that it is convenient to assume that all high schools are notable, (if the article is more than a sub-stub, and it can be verified to actually exist) to avoid the drama of a drawn-out AfD in every case. This article is
914:
It contains more than the sub-stub like listing now because of the AFD and the attention it brought, I suspect. Look at its pre-AFD form and its current, while it is still, IMO, lacking anything to justify its own article rather than an entry in the school district or town article. Perhaps AfDs can
501:
I apologise if my comments offended you in any way, but I was commenting from what I was reading above, as the general impression I was getting from a few comments was that they were heavily influenced by that which I mentioned previously, which if that had been the case (which you corrected as not
893:
OK, well just a point of clarification; I did not say it was policy. I said it was a de facto standard. That means that my observation is that all prods on high schools get removed, all speedy's get denied, and all high schools with extremely small number of exceptions get kept after sometimes
480:
position, which is bascily that almost all high schools are notable, and that "www is a high school" is suffiecient to asert notability. You should not mischarachterise it like this, that is rude. You really don't need to call me rude over nothing, I'm not going to start flaming with you though.
289:
You implyedly concede that being a high school is itself an assertion of notability with the word "beyond" and I agree with you. Why not just leave it and probably within a few months time other people will find it when they search in google and improve the article, essentially high schools are
878:
It was in the original draft of the guidelines and was carried forward to the then Option 1 before Option 1 was arbitrarily removed by an editor. A watered down version is still there. If you want to beef it up again feel free :-)
445:
843:
like most other high school articles that we have already kept, each with the nearly-identical arguments. There is nothing new here as far as deletion rationale to make this article stand-out from the de facto standard.
646:
since all high schools have enough available sourcing to make them notable. However, I wouldn't mind redirecting this article to its school district until someone decides to make something out of this page.
322:
I couldn't diagree with you more. He heals the sickly, feeds the hungry, and gives porn to the horny. He has also often denied being The True
Messiah, and only The True Messiah denies His own divinity.
444:
also note that in 1990 there was a major news story at the school when a bus with kids on was hijacked. Very notable school, there are 3 current mentions in google news and a further 8 in the
239:
It contains a sentence, if thats all we have to say about the school, it really isn't notable nor does it serve any purpose other than a Family Guy-esque shouting of 'Thats our school!'.
116:
290:
notable, and always meet the primary natability criterion, since they are often in the local press. And even if it does not improve what harm is it doing? Here it is for you
89:
84:
93:
356:
784:
76:
405:
166:, which I agree with, it is not approreiate to go around upsetting people over such trivial things, since High schools are almost always notable.
195:
He basicly said that people should be able to add their own high schools as it dosent do any harm, are probably notable, and that is just
80:
703:. No content beyond what is appropriate in the target. No references, secondary or otherwise. Does not deserve its own article. --
623:
575:
530:
380:- let's avoid going around these houses again and move on. Experience has shown that all such high schools can be sourced up to meet
17:
864:
700:
1009:
992:
969:
940:
929:
You are absolutely correct. I have seen it many times over that articles get improved because they get attention while at AfD.
924:
909:
888:
873:
854:
834:
817:
799:
774:
756:
730:
712:
690:
673:
656:
628:
601:
580:
556:
535:
508:
490:
471:
457:
436:
420:
393:
371:
332:
317:
302:
284:
270:
248:
225:
208:
190:
175:
151:
129:
58:
72:
64:
1027:
36:
936:
905:
850:
795:
1026:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
669:
402:
144:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
770:
476:
I am not voting based on what Jimbo said. I was merely pointing out that our most senior contributor takes
960:
as there is nothing notable about this school. Perhaps the consensus is not as overwhelming as assumed?
791:
619:
571:
526:
884:
597:
552:
389:
989:
965:
434:
868:
752:
726:
708:
686:
665:
185:
139:
124:
830:
766:
416:
367:
681:- Hopefully this will be a bump for someone to expand it, but it has no business being deleted.
813:
652:
614:
566:
521:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
196:
920:
880:
593:
548:
486:
453:
385:
328:
313:
298:
291:
280:
266:
244:
221:
214:
204:
171:
1005:
978:
961:
429:
275:
No, but a stub with no sources and no assertion of notability beyond being a school? Yes.
748:
722:
704:
682:
49:
721:
As a redirect, it will remain a bump waiting for the discovery of sourced content. --
408:
381:
826:
412:
363:
809:
648:
110:
916:
504:
482:
467:
449:
324:
309:
294:
276:
262:
240:
217:
200:
167:
1001:
931:
900:
845:
407:. I am sure more can be found offline that would allow the article to pass
1000:
still this tired old debate, virtually all high schools are notable imo.
428:
per consensus. Must we have this same argument every single day? --
1020:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
613:
When it emerges from the revert-froth maybe I'll consider it.
739:, based on improvements (added content and references), and
808:. Improvements to the article now demonstrate notability.
611:
123:
A not particularly notable public high school. Delete.
106:
102:
98:
610:
What, you mean the comment added randomly last week?
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
384:and my research shows that this is no exception.
1030:). No further edits should be made to this page.
863:If this is policy, shouldn't it be recorded at
664:this particularly notable public high school.
915:be a boon to the articles as well as a bane?
8:
357:list of Schools-related deletion discussions
138:High schools are definately notable enough.
785:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
783:: This debate has been included in the
355:: This debate has been included in the
184:I didn't see that ruling--which was it?
565:Sure it does, why would you say that?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
865:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (schools)
257:Are you suggesting that we delete
24:
701:School District 57 Prince George
547:- A7 does not apply to schools.
520:per A7: no claim of notability.
199:Y to make a big fuss about it.
73:Prince George Secondary School
65:Prince George Secondary School
1:
993:22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
970:17:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
941:04:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
925:17:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
910:05:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
889:21:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
874:17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
855:15:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
835:21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
818:03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
800:00:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
775:23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
757:22:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
731:00:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
713:23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
691:23:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
674:20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
657:20:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
629:20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
602:16:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
581:14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
557:02:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
536:19:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
509:19:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
491:18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
472:18:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
458:18:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
437:18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
421:17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
394:17:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
372:17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
333:18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
318:17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
303:17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
285:16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
271:16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
249:16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
226:17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
209:16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
191:16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
176:16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
152:15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
130:14:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1010:16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
59:19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
1047:
1023:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
977:. Verifiable and NPOV.
261:stub in wikipedia?
213:Here it is for you
896:de facto standard
802:
792:Shawn in Montreal
788:
627:
579:
534:
419:
374:
370:
360:
1038:
1025:
986:
983:
871:
789:
779:
617:
569:
524:
415:
413:Camaron1 | Chris
366:
364:Camaron1 | Chris
361:
351:
188:
149:
142:
127:
114:
96:
56:
34:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1028:deletion review
1021:
984:
979:
939:
908:
869:
853:
186:
145:
140:
125:
87:
71:
68:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1044:
1042:
1033:
1032:
1015:
1013:
1012:
995:
972:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
935:
904:
870:Lawrence Cohen
858:
857:
849:
837:
820:
803:
777:
761:
760:
759:
734:
693:
676:
666:Coccyx Bloccyx
659:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
605:
604:
584:
583:
560:
559:
539:
538:
514:
513:
512:
511:
496:
495:
494:
493:
460:
439:
423:
396:
375:
349:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
252:
251:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
193:
187:Lawrence Cohen
179:
178:
154:
126:Lawrence Cohen
121:
120:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1043:
1031:
1029:
1024:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
996:
994:
991:
987:
982:
976:
973:
971:
967:
963:
959:
956:
955:
942:
938:
934:
933:
928:
927:
926:
922:
918:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
902:
897:
892:
891:
890:
886:
882:
877:
876:
875:
872:
866:
862:
861:
860:
859:
856:
852:
848:
847:
841:
838:
836:
832:
828:
824:
821:
819:
815:
811:
807:
804:
801:
797:
793:
786:
782:
778:
776:
772:
768:
767:~NeonFire372~
765:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
733:
732:
728:
724:
719:
718:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
675:
671:
667:
663:
660:
658:
654:
650:
645:
642:
641:
630:
625:
621:
616:
612:
609:
608:
607:
606:
603:
599:
595:
591:
588:
587:
586:
585:
582:
577:
573:
568:
564:
563:
562:
561:
558:
554:
550:
546:
543:
542:
541:
540:
537:
532:
528:
523:
519:
516:
515:
510:
507:
506:
500:
499:
498:
497:
492:
488:
484:
479:
475:
474:
473:
470:
469:
464:
461:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
438:
435:
433:
432:
427:
424:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
403:
400:
397:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
376:
373:
369:
365:
358:
354:
350:
348:
347:
334:
330:
326:
321:
320:
319:
315:
311:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:
254:
253:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
234:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
192:
189:
183:
182:
181:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
158:
155:
153:
150:
148:
143:
137:
134:
133:
132:
131:
128:
118:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1022:
1019:
1014:
997:
980:
974:
957:
930:
899:
895:
844:
839:
822:
805:
780:
763:
744:
740:
736:
720:
717:
696:
695:
678:
661:
643:
615:CRGreathouse
589:
567:CRGreathouse
544:
522:CRGreathouse
517:
503:
477:
466:
462:
441:
430:
425:
398:
377:
352:
258:
237:Delete/Merge
236:
164:obiter dicta
163:
160:
159:per Jimbo's
156:
146:
141:STORMTRACKER
135:
122:
52:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
881:TerriersFan
594:TerriersFan
592:- read it.
549:TerriersFan
386:TerriersFan
962:Springnuts
431:Smashville
825:per nom.
810:• Gene93k
749:SmokeyJoe
723:SmokeyJoe
705:SmokeyJoe
683:matt91486
463:Weak Keep
53:Wizardman
937:contribs
906:contribs
851:contribs
117:View log
741:improve
649:Noroton
590:Comment
545:Comment
446:archive
442:Comment
197:WP:DICK
90:protect
85:history
981:Double
958:Delete
917:Narson
823:Delete
745:expand
518:Delete
505:Bungle
483:Lobojo
468:Bungle
450:Lobojo
417:(talk)
368:(talk)
325:Lobojo
310:Narson
295:Lobojo
277:Narson
263:Lobojo
241:Narson
218:Lobojo
201:Lobojo
168:Lobojo
161:ruling
94:delete
1002:RMHED
990:Talk)
932:JERRY
901:JERRY
846:JERRY
747:. --
697:Merge
259:every
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
1006:talk
998:Keep
985:Blue
975:Keep
966:talk
921:talk
885:talk
840:Keep
831:talk
814:talk
806:Keep
796:talk
781:Note
771:talk
764:Keep
753:talk
743:and
737:Keep
727:talk
709:talk
687:talk
679:Keep
670:talk
662:Keep
653:talk
644:Keep
598:talk
553:talk
487:talk
454:talk
426:Keep
409:WP:N
399:Keep
390:talk
382:WP:N
378:Keep
353:Note
329:talk
314:talk
299:talk
281:talk
267:talk
245:talk
222:talk
205:talk
172:talk
157:Keep
136:Keep
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
46:keep
787:.
699:to
359:.
115:– (
1008:)
968:)
923:)
887:)
867:?
833:)
827:GJ
816:)
798:)
773:)
755:)
729:)
711:)
689:)
672:)
655:)
622:|
600:)
574:|
555:)
529:|
489:)
478:my
456:)
448:.
411:.
404:,
392:)
331:)
316:)
301:)
293:.
283:)
269:)
247:)
224:)
216:.
207:)
174:)
147:94
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
48:.
1004:(
988:(
964:(
919:(
883:(
829:(
812:(
794:(
790:—
769:(
751:(
725:(
707:(
685:(
668:(
651:(
626:)
624:c
620:t
618:(
596:(
578:)
576:c
572:t
570:(
551:(
533:)
531:c
527:t
525:(
485:(
452:(
388:(
362:—
327:(
312:(
297:(
279:(
265:(
243:(
220:(
203:(
170:(
119:)
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.