Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashland High School (Ohio): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:21, 21 December 2005

Ashland High School (Ohio)

Article on obscure, non-notable highschool which is badly written, orphan and uncategorized Mecanismo | Talk 02:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN school. Alr 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a high school. Has any high school ever been deleted? Are all noms masochists? -- JJay 03:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the job of encyclopedias to serve as directories on highschools. Specially obscure, not-notable and only locally meaningfull schools like the one which the article was on --Mecanismo | Talk 19:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you have an unbiased opinion on the subject and Ashland. Try telling that to all the Keep voters below. -- JJay 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been long asserted that popularity doesn't mean correctness. This is one example. --Mecanismo | Talk 00:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia is a compilation of all human knowledge; thus, the mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I exist. Therefore, by your argument, I am worthy of having an encyclopedia article on me. My My cat also exists. He deserves an article too. I hope this comment helps to clarify your views on the subject --Mecanismo | Talk 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent. Can one high school be much more notable than another? Jasmol 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are all very notable. -- JJay 03:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What makes any highschool notable and therefore worthy of encyclopedia articles, specially this blurb article? --Mecanismo | Talk 03:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thay have histories. They influence people's lives. They are the centers of their communities. They have big budgets. They compete in sports. They have famous alumni. Stuff happens there. That's all notable. Ask other voters to provide other reasons. -- JJay 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and regarding this afd, where in fact does this article lists information on history, the budgets, sports competitions, the influence it had on people's lives and even about "stuff" happening there? In the future please have the common sense of basing your votes on concrete and objective proof --Mecanismo | Talk 21:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All that takes time. These articles don't just spring up overnight, you know. -- JJay 22:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they don't spring up overnight. And they don't spring up overmonth or even overyear. I challenge you to go look at school articles over a year old, and see for yourself how few get much past the stage they originally appeared at. It is clear to me that inclusionists for the most part do not wish to concern themselves with the long-term viability of an article, and instead support the thesis that more is always better. D e nni ☯ 02:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your point? That the project should shutdown? Every article not completed should get cut? No stubs allowed? Are you advocating a blanket purge of every article that you don't consider viable? For my part, I'm willing to allow editors the requisite time to build these school articles- ten or twenty years if need be. I assume the schools and wikipedia will still be here during that timeframe. -- JJay 07:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My, you're good at setting up straw men. But I will take one of your wheat guys and say yes to no stubs for non-notable schools. West Armpit High School will be a one-sentence stub for as many decades as you care to wait, because quite frankly, Jjay, no one gives a beaver's backside about this school except a few of its former students, who probably aren't even aware of Wikipedia's existence, or if they are, couldn't be bothered to improve the article. I am willing to accept school articles which present well as articles, but I have no patience for articles which are half-baked placeholders for maybe maybe something happening down the road. Maybe. This kind of article just makes us look incompetent. D e nni ☯ 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respect where you stand. In fact, I would agree with you, except that there are no non-notable schools, that is nonsensical nonsense designed to fool the uninitiated. They are all notable, even PS Armpit 157. They are worth many beavers, front and back, cooked and baked. And that even extends to Canadian schools, where beaver, I've heard, may be easier to come by. -- JJay 01:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Inadvertently useful: the article indirectly cautions parents where not to send their kids. Billbrock 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though needs more verificaton it does meet WP:SCH's new proposal.Gateman1997 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pending references. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per begrudging consensus that high schools are notable. FCYTravis 05:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of highschools which aren't remotely notable and will never be heard of outside their region. This is so obvious I fail to understand how it keeps being mentioned. --Mecanismo | Talk 00:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete please it does not make any sense to keep this Gazpacho 07:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Ashland, Ohio which could use some more content. Clear past precedent to keep high schools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools affect many lives around the world, and to say that an article about (for example) Che Guevara is more relevant to a particular person at a particular moment than an article about Ashland High School takes away the original meaning and beauty of wikipedia. 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.107.128 (talk • contribs)

Grocery stores influence at least as many lives, but I certainly hope they turn into articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are some great articles on grocery stores. Nice point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bored1002 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what grocery store did you guys graduate from? -- JJay 17:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget about the people who are homeschooled. If this article passess based on the "graduating", "life impact" and other arguments, maybe we should start listing articles on the homes where homeschooled kids lived. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you submit those articles, I promise to look at them with an open mind. -- JJay 19:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alumni are all extremely notable within Ohio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bored1002 (talk • contribs)

Comment local notoriety doesn't justify an article on any encyclopedia --Mecanismo | Talk 15:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per high school precedent.--SarekOfVulcan 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus on WP:SCH, if sufficient suitable information can be found. If not, merge into article on the school district (and if one doesn't exist, start it). Proto t c 10:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn high school. Any interesting stuff about schools would be POV. Catchpole 11:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Stubby in the extreme, but they've got a referenced alumnus. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the consensus was that there wasn't any consensus and that it had resulted in school deletionists talking among themselves. Eusebeus 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a high school doesn't deserve an article unless it has fame well beyond its own community Edrigu 16:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, local notoriety justifies inclusion in an unlimited encylopedia providing universal access to knowledge. Kappa 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — valid high school. — RJH 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought we were over this. CalJW 00:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. Kurt Weber 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And where have you been in the school discussion, beyond launching cheap shots against other hard-working Wikipedians? How about bowing out until you have digested WP:CIVIL? D e nni ☯ 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We'll have this whole site flooded with articles about high schools, bowling teams, malls, and anything else members have be part of but isn't notable. Unless something happened at this high school or someone more important than a football start attended it, it is not notable. There's nothing here that can't be expressed at this school's website. Roman Soldier 03:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A famous alum is sufficient to establish notability, given past precedent on schools. -Colin Kimbrell 21:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep and please do not encourage trolling its not good Yuckfoo 07:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and verifiable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no credible sources on which to base an article redstucco 09:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 *'''keep''' and please do not encourage trolling its not good [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 07:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''', notable and verifiable. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' no credible sources on which to base an article [[User:Red stucco|<span style="color:red">red</span><span style="color:black">stucco</span>]] 09:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)