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 of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: NO CONSENSUS NOW DOES NOT PRECLUDE FORMATION OF CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD AS REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE OR REDIRECT. Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks notability, i.e., is not "known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency" (quoted from guideline on notability). May be a vanity article. Hydriotaphia 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge unless expanded to meet WP:SCH. Delete if not verified.Gateman1997 06:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Delete. Delete due to non-notability. However, the precedent is to keep high schools and merge primary schools, per WP:SCH. As a result, delete unless we can verify the information. -Rebelguys2 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As of this moment, there is no verifiable information in this article. Therefore it must be deleted, pending a substantial rewrite with sources. "Notability" is an absurd thing to even discuss, when the issue should be about verifiability. To the nom, Quoted from *essay* on notability "This is not a policy or guideline.". Finally, please quit this rubbish about precedent of merging primaries. No such precedent exists. WP:SCH is the closest thing to standard (but not standard), and its all about content, not education level. Elementaries tend to have less content, and are more likely to be merged, but not simply because they are a lower level. Actually precedent is to keep all verified schools regardless. But some of us have been willing to compromise, and accept mergers of substubs (partly in a pursuit of peace). Please don't misread the compromise of WP:SCH to be anti-primary school. Its not. --Rob 07:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on the following links.

[1] [2] [3] [4] They do seem to suggest there was a school called Moe High School and it opened in 1953, in Victoria, Australia. Is that enough? dunno... Jcuk 08:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for finding that, but for now, I'm staying with delete. I think the school existed, but there's still no reliable sources about the school that are adequate for our reliable sources guidelines. I'm now personally certain of its existence, but that's not good enough for inclusion. I oppose a merge in this case, because I don't wish to "contaminate" a valid well-sourced article with inadequately sourced information from this article. --Rob 08:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'm quite ok with schools being on Wikipedia. --Terence Ong 11:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References on the sites of two major universities and the state government seem sufficient to me, but that song still looks fake. CalJW 16:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — It lasted for about 20 years and then was demolished? Was it a temporary construction until a better school was built? We can probably mention it on a page about the replacement school. But there seems to be nothing useful about the current content. — RJH 16:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verified - notability is a failed policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the existence of the school has been verified, but per policy it is the content of the article that needs to be verified, and that has not been done. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is certain content that is unverified, then by all means remove that content. That's no reason to delete the article.
• Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the article contains some good, well-sourced, verifiable content prior to expiration of AfD discussion. Can be re-created at any time when content that meets Wikipedia policy is available. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is difficult to make a decision. Was the school replaced by another school? Moe is certainly a prominant place and could well have a High School. If so, put this in the article about the later school. If not, weak keep, but only if the article is much improved. Bduke 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cnwb 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with Moe, Victoria, needs work incl citations etc but not deletion. --A Y Arktos 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought this was a hoax to start with, but it genuinely seems to exist (http://static.namesdatabase.com/schools/AUVT/Moe/MoeHighSchool.html) so on the usual principles (i.e. I vote merge for stubs, keep for longer articles), given that it is more than a stub, keep it is. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with a redirect since I have now failed to verify (as have others) the content of the article3 in any respect other than that "Moe high school is a high school in Moe" which iis scarcely going to make the front pages. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with a merge is that this *was* a school. We don't know precisely what happened to it (we know the remnants of the building were dumped somewhere improperly, so that confirms its demolished). Where do we merge a closed school to? Do you list it in Moe, Victoria, possibly next to currently open school(s)? Maybe make a new article on a school district (if one is applicable), and make a closed school as its first, and initially only entry? I submit that often *more* information is needed to do a merge, than to have a stand alone article. For instance, when merging, you need to know what if any district is relevant, and any/all communities served by a school. We don't know that. Currently, we can probably be confident that Moe, Victoria is 100% correct. Why would we wish to spoil that. --Rob 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The article is now sufficiently referenced. Silensor 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It appears that Lowanna College was formed in 1994 after the merger of three former Secendary Colleges. It serves Moe, Newborough and surrounding districts, so Moe High School may have been one of the three. See Lowanna College. Maybe we need a page about Lowanna College that includes stuff about three closed Schools! Bduke 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or merge, real and just about verifiable schoolKappa 07:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• {{db-school}}. Minimal content to expand upon, and no assertion of notability whatsoever. This is the type of stub somebody would create to shock the hell out of his football coach (to further the "jockstrap" motif). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE () 15:54, Jan. 22, 2006
• Keep The school clearly exists. Kurt Weber 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Existance is not a keep criteron per Wikipedia policy.Gateman1997 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Schools themselves aren't notable just because they exist. AnAn 03:22, 23 January 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.