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 Deleted, the boundary of notability on schools has to be drawn somewhere. The claim that "all schools are notable" is simply absurd, and anyone basing their reasoning on a falsehood like that is likely to be discounted. What we're dealing with here is a small, small school that is part of a church that itself isn't notable enough to have an article. Remember, AFD is not a vote; judgement can and must be exercised. --Cyde Weys 02:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable school, no links to it, very little content. ColinFine 14:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very small school. -- Necrothesp 16:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A very small school indeed. --Nishkid64 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All high schools (or schools that include the high school grades) are notable. The article includes sources, including an article from the Finger Lakes Times. I wonder if the school is fully accredited, though. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Normally I'd agree with you, but this school appears to be too small to be notable. Secondary schools are usually much larger than this. This is smaller than many junior schools. -- Necrothesp 22:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Truthbringer and for reasons explained at User:Silensor/Schools. This school is accredited by the Association of Christian Schools International for those who were wondering. ;-) Silensor 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I again refer to User:JoshuaZ/Schools which rebutts Silensor's essay. JoshuaZ 04:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attempts to rebutt but fails miserably at it may not be replaced by rebutts in normal grammatical usage. WilyD 18:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Do you intend to explain what you mean? JoshuaZ 18:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since your essay fails miserably in its attempts to rebutt Silensor, saying it rebutts it is very poor english. A reader might get confused, and think your essay has any merit whatsoever (when it obviously does not). WilyD 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • a) That is a matter of opinion of whether or not it rebuts his essay well (and I note that at least one school inclusionist seems to have had somewhat positive remarks about my essay so). b) You seem to confuse the meanings of many words related to logic. In this case you are confused about the difference between logic and grammar. To use the canonical example "Green dreams sleep furiously" is a grammatically valid nonsensical sentence. It might make sense not to make grammatical critiques when you don't understand what grammar is. JoshuaZ 18:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And furthermore, I have already asked you to explain what issues you have with my essay. So far you have not mentioned a single one. If you have any substantive issues please explain them. I'm far more interested in an actual dialogue on this matter than simple claims that the essay fails in some way. JoshuaZ 18:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not assert any importance. --W.marsh 01:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can see how this is at the margins of existing school notability precedent, but I don't want to start deleting things randomly unless there's a significant persuasive argument that uniform inclusionism for high schools is bad. This is clearly a small school, with 75 students in 12 grades, but it's more than a few people home schooling together or some such. I'm sure there are equally small schools in government run school districts around. Keep it. Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable school and well-sourced article --Carioca 02:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources cited (and no notability asserted). --W.marsh 03:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were listed under External links. I have moved them to References. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, small but verifiable and established school. Kappa 04:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article provides verifiable sources. No known standard specifies that "bigger is better (or more notable)" nor is there any standard that specifies a minimum size for inclusion as an article. Alansohn 04:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This school seems almost designed to illustrate the absurdity of inclusionism in regard to schools. If we had an article about the church that the school was a part of and included all the info in the article the article would be deleted as a non-notable church. Somehow we have an article about the school (which contains less information and is about only the school) and yet that should be kept? JoshuaZ 04:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Small but notable school well worth having as an article in Wikipedia. Bagginator 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please per georgewilliamherbet this is worth having on wikipedia and meets verifiability standard Yuckfoo 05:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very crufty indeed. Size and verifiability are not at issue. Notability os. This is a micro-school with no real claim to fame. Ohconfucius 08:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tiny indeed but still a secondary school. Herostratus 08:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. I'm not sure there's any other relevent criterion - certainly none has been presented. WilyD 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As already observed, notability has already been brought up as a criterion. Please stop ingoring actual issues and actually discuss the matters at hand. JoshuaZ 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability has already been established. Arguments based upon false premises are no arguments at all. WilyD 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Maybe I took too many logic courses when I was younger but an argument is an argument regardless of whether it has valid premises. As to your claim that notability has been established, how has it been established, what facts in the article or in this talk page establish notability? JoshuaZ 18:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe you did - encyclopaedias adopt an epistemology based upon empiricism, not logic. WilyD 18:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that might be relevant if this were an article page. But it isn't this is Wikispace so using words as they are generally used is a good thing. And I note that you ignored my second question: how has notability been established and what facts in the article or in this talk page establish notability? JoshuaZ 18:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, then no relevent argument has been presented - I wouldn't have expected that needed to be made clear given the context. WilyD 18:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm confused then. Are you saying there has or has not been anything that establishes notability? JoshuaZ 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a small, non-notable school. Prolog 16:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per schoolwatch flood above --ForbiddenWord 19:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This essentially says keep per lots of people shouting for keep already. This is not an argument. JoshuaZ 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it demonstrates that there is consensus within the community that schools are notable. --ForbiddenWord 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I wouldn't call twelve keeps against nine deletes any sort of consensus! Secondary schools are usually notable, yes. I'd be the first to agree. But even I don't think one this small is notable. -- Necrothesp 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For all of the reasons given in the past year. Vegaswikian 06:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NN. Ignore the "keep all schools" trolls. — Dunc|☺ 08:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hey, here's an idea, since "all schools are notable", then let's expand our thinking to "all teachers are notable" (after all what's a school without its teachers), and of course, "all teacher's aides are notable" (hey someone's gotta help out), oh and principals and other administrative personnel too -- just think: tens, if not hundreds of thousands of new useless articles to write. BTW, do nursery schools count? •Jim62sch• 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Teeny tiny nn school. Second Jim's sarcastic epistle above; how ridiculous must this get before we stop rubber-stamping all secondary schools? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.