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 redirect to Bushland Independent School District. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushland High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. Article effectively has no content other than "it's a school in Bushland". No apparent notability, no external sources, no information. >Radiant< 14:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Radiant, but redirect to Bushland Independent School District. Eusebeus 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but agree should redirect to Bushland Independent School District. Mark E 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bushland Independent School District. Article states that school was founded in 2005, which matches the National Center for Education Statistics data for the school that shows it made up entirely of 61 students in 9th grade. A Google news/Archive search finds a few dozen sources, almost all of which are about the establishment of the school. Unlike other high schools that have had several decades to generate a history, this school is simply too new to establish notability. A redirect will allow a standalone article to be created once independent notability can be established for this high school. Alansohn 17:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a total absence of non directory information. I am in general not in favor of extending the reach of speedy, but articles like this make me wonder whether we might want to do it after all. DGG (talk)
• Keep and expand. We will have an article about this school in the end, so there's no point in deleting this stub. Hawkestone 01:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep because all high schools are notable, as I argue User:Noroton/opinions, although User:Husond or some other closing admin may come along to again disenfranchise me. Noroton 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as it is written now. No notable alumni, no historical value, no architectural value claimed in the article.Callelinea 03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the opening date in with Bushland Independent School District and redirect. A one line article is worse than having no article because it makes the reader think that we have an article when we don't. There may well be a justification to make a separate article on the school, but that can be made later if someone wants to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge as above. There is no worthwhile content here whatsoever and it seems unlikely that any reliable sources will exist at present to enable expansion. There is no consensus that all secondary/high schools are notable, and this cannot be quoted as a reason to keep an article. Dahliarose 11:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete (no asserted notability) or Merge into appropriate collection (for related thoughts and arguments, see this proposal-under-construction: User:Sambc/wip/Sprawl Control Policy Proposal) SamBC 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to its school district. Having failed to assert notability, and lacking famous alumni or incidents, it's just not notable enough to get an article.--Kylohk 15:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as has been done already is fine. This is a recently constructed school, so there is little history to record, and there doesnt appear to be anything novel about the school. Also, there have been no significant contributions in the school article, so a merge to the district article is a good interim solution until the district article is large enough to warrant separate articles for each school. John Vandenberg 02:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as already done, and redirect. Delete is not a simple option due to the requirements of GFDL. --SmokeyJoe 03:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the GFDL cause problems with deletion of articles? SamBC 10:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If material is moved from page A to page B, then the authorship information of the material must be preserved. This information is contained in the history of page A. If page A is deleted, then the complete authorship information of the new page B is no longer readily available, in violation of GFDL.

This GFDL issue aside, redirect is appropriate in this case, reasoning as per Sjakkalle. I see no benefit in deletion over redirect. Your own reasonable writing on Sprawl control (Redirect, Don't Delete) also seems to me to support redirect over deletion in this case. --SmokeyJoe 15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I completely agree, as my writing indicates, and for a variety of reasons. I was just curious about the GFDL issue. I chose to ask the question here rather than your talk page as I thought others might benefit from the answer. Thanks for that. SamBC 16:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - all elementary, middle, and high schools that are without notability should be deleted. They serve no purpose and lead to trivia rather than an encyclopedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:55, 14 July 2007 (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.