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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

IP-removed Prod, based on the fallacious argument that simply by existing a school is an "acceptable article". I'm sure this one's been a great place for its students over the years, but I can find nothing independent and non-trivial about it BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - although personally I'd love to see the lot of them deleted, there seems to be a consensus that high schools are notable simply by existing. - Iridescenti 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a reason to vote keep. TJ Spyke 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some precedent, and some opinion, but as near as I can tell, schools are in general subject to the same guidelines that everything else here is. --Dennisthe2 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN school, the article doesn't even assert notabillity (so it could be speedy deleted as well). TJ Spyke 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about speedying it, but given the usual outcry that even an AfD on a school generates, I felt that a Prod was the best way forward to start with. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Show why the school is notable or Delete the article. --Dennisthe2 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, guess what! User: Dual Freq changed my mind below. Keep. Yes, it's a blurb in one of those multi-part articles, but it's more than one or two sentences. It is, in fact, three paragraphs right around the power sources. Good enough for me. --Dennisthe2 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because all high schools are notable, as I argue here, and there don't seem to be any other problems with the article. Noroton 01:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The requirement for non-trivial independent sources is not addressed particularly well in that argument (which I must say beats the socks off any other school-inclusionist argument I've ever come across), and it remains an issue here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A even bolder argument has been asserted when needed, that all schools regardless of grade level are notable. . It is just barely possible that most high schools might be notable if serious effort went into developing an article and finding sources. But this is not one of them.

Delete unsourced, and so little evidence of notability that it is like to remain so. And I urge Iridescenti to !vote as he actually thinks, rather than thinking obliged to follow some imaginary consensus.

• • • But I think it has been sufficiently shown that articles on high schools at least are never suitable for a speedy, because a speedy is for incontestible cases & it is obvious that every one of them will be contested. DGG 09:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Precisely my point. Schools as an entire category always turn into semi-controversial deletions, so speedying them is never the best option. I wonder idly if the Speedy policy should actually be edited in order to say just that. Something along the lines of "If articles like this always generate debates when they're listed for deletion, don't put a CSD tag on it". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep — Borderline notable with 400 students, but needs expansion. — RJH (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. There is no consensus at Wikipedia that high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the fact that high school AfDs are closed as "no consensus", "keep" or "delete" on a case by case basis. Unless and until somebody demonstrates that this particular school is notable based on reliable sources, this article has no place at Wikipedia. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The school has won multiple state championships, all of which have been documented with reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Google News archives has a total of 1,810 sources, which I'm reviewing for addition to the article. Alansohn 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK, we've been through this, but there's articles and I need some clarification before I go with anything further. I need a third party to look at Alansohn's link on google news - there's scads of articles, but they appear to be all local sports articles from the Milwaukee Journal. Certainly a WP:RS, but does it meet WP:N despite the locality factor? --Dennisthe2 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bsf is quite right - there is no consensus and the evidence adduced above - e.g. winning state championships - is an arbitrary measure of notability derived almost exclusively by people who think high schools are inherently notable anyway and thus have found whatever flimsy rationale they can as a means of justifying a position they would take regardless. That is not to say that those who wish to keep every high school article should not be able to justify their position, but it does mean that the raft of policy-waving that tends to accompany these discussions (I have showed you reliable, verifiable, etc... sources) is misplaced since, as with Alan's point above, it refers to events that do nothing to make a case for the notability of what is, after all, just a high school. Eusebeus 09:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Unfortunately, despite the rather long-winded diatribe above, all you are stating is that the school is just not notable, a fairly basic argument to avoid in the AfD process. While I have made an effort to improve the article, you put yourself in a position of arbitrarily deciding thumbs down on this article. Not only do you not bother to reference any Wikipedia policy that would require deletion of the article, you actually criticize my efforts to address such policy issues as a "raft of policy-waving". Is there anything that will satisfy your standards? Do you have any? Alansohn 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alan, it's very simple. All schools default to being non-notable and therefore do not deserve inclusion in an encyclopedia. Reaching for this or that reason to explain notability simply fails to convince me. Two years ago editors like Tony and Nicodemus were running around dragging up every notable alum in a desperate bid to do much the same as you are doing not to mention frothing on about policy this and policy that - so there's nothing new here, just a fundamental disagreement on what merits inclusion. I still say, despite dual freq's discovery of a newspaper article or two, delete this cruft and I recognise that you will disagree with me. So leave it at that. Eusebeus 10:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is very simple. We have policies. When there are issues as to whether articles need to be deleted, we refer to these policies. With a lot of words, you are still stating that this article must be deleted, simply because you have arbitrarily decided that it's just not notable. In your lengthy Wikipedia career, which consists almost exclusively of passing judgment on AfDs, you have used variations of the patently invalid just not notable as an excuse to demand deletion of every single other school article AfD you have ever participated. If you want your vote to have any measure of validity, you need to start addressing specific articles and specifying why the specific article fails relevant Wikipedia policy. It's not that you disagree with me; the problem is that you refuse to follow Wikipedia policy as developed by our entire Wikipedia community. Until then, your vote is completely and utterly invalid. Alansohn 11:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • lol, the spirit of nicodemus lives on! Eusebeus 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Calling someone else's vote "completely and utterly invalid" is completely and utterly uncivil. Please review WP:CIVIL. MetsFan76 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Xarr 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Another just not notable. Will you address this specific article and any relevant Wikipedia policy to explain why you have decided that this article is not notable? Alansohn 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: They have won three Division 3 State volleyball titles and two Class B State basketball titles, if they were consistently winning Division 1, Class A or national championships then they may pass as notable. Just because a local newspaper needs to fill its pages does not make them notable. If you can improve the article beyond what is there, then, by all means keep, but this is a small school with a short, uninteresting history. Perhaps in the future this establishment may come into notoriety but as the article stands my original recommendations remain unchanged. Xarr 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: Divisions/Classes are how the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association categorize schools based on size, not on ability. Your ignorance and misinterpretation of these details, and the fact that you find them "uninteresting" are irrelevant. You still have failed to state anything beyond your own personal bias that this school is just not notable. Please try to review relevant Wikipedia policy and explain why this article must be deleted. Alansohn 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep per Dual Freqs addition's on the artificial wetland. Xarr 08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No offence, but that's definitely the strangest rationale I've ever heard. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the 120+ other schools listed in Category:High schools in Wisconsin. I don't see this any less notable than any of the other schools. This article is a decent stub with an infobox, logo image and more citations than the average school stub. A quick Google news archive search yields several articles mentioning the school in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This one says the school was the first in Wisconsin to use Wind and solar for wastewater management.[1] Recent $5.5 million expansion according to MJS. --Dual Freq 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that does it for me. You add that to the article yet? --Dennisthe2 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Along with the rest of the other entries for all other schools on here. Sorry for my harshness, but this is a poorly written article. MetsFan76 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed here? Does that mean all 120+ in Category:High schools in Wisconsin? What about the other states, delete those too? What would make a high school article notable? --Dual Freq 03:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't think of anything that would make a high school article notable. It's a high school!! People go to high school to get a diploma to go on to college to get a degree and then, hopefully, become notable. =) And please, don't get me started on middle school articles. MetsFan76 03:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on that argument, we should delete the college articles too. They are all just non-notable educational institutions. --Dual Freq 11:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not necessarily (and sorry to pre-empt MetsFan if this was precisely the argument s/he was going to make). Colleges/Universities can achieve notability by having important scholars working at them, having research institutions based at them and so forth. I wouldn't go as far as MetsFan by saying that all high schools are non-notable (I've defended ones in the past simply because they have notable alumni), but it's easier for a tertiary institution to be notable than it is for a secondary one to be so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dual Freq, most colleges are notable per the reason BigHaz has eloquently stated. My issue is that I'm not quite sure what makes a middle school/high school notable. Is it because a famous person attended there? If that's the case, and if that's the only thing the school has going for them, then how is it notable? Maybe I jumped the gun by saying all high/middle schools should be deleted as there are some that are indeed exemplary, but having articles are every school in America (I think I saw an elementary school article) is just too much. MetsFan76 12:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The artificial wetland portion seems to have been widely reported in 2001 as well, from Lexis Nexis I see transcripts of Milwaukee channel 6 news reports about it, several Milwaukee State Journal articles mentioning it and at least one dedicated to it ("School's experimental sewage treatment plant is a growing success", July 7, 2002, News page 01B, 953 words and another "Windmill to pump air into sewage", August 2, 2002, News page 03B, 406 words). There is also a July 30, 2001, 402 word Associated Press news wire report about the wetland the school was constructing. Apparently they are fairly rare in the northern USA and all are considered experimental with the state of Wisconsin gathering efficiency data on them for wider usage. Another MSJ article from 1996 prior to the artificial wetland, "Marsh madness: School makes land a living lab", October 17, 1995, 506 words and 3 photos about the adjacent Wisconsin DNR wetlands being used as an outdoor classroom. There is also an article about Staff Sgt. Timothy La Sage, a 1993 graduate, who was wounded in Iraq, but I suppose many schools could say that. Also a short blurb from, 1997 about a graduate named Dawn Plitzuweit, two-time NCAA Division II All-American at Michigan Tech, UW assistant basketball coach and mentioned in Grand Valley State University. That's pretty much it. --Dual Freq 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all great things in regards to the school, however, I still fail to see why middle schools and high schools need articles. MetsFan76 23:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why fictional tv, comic book or movie characters from single episodes / issues need articles, but they are here. I see so much cruft here, but this is a real institution, real students, real teachers, real building, etc. I have no personal knowledge of this particular school, but I hesitant to delete one school when there are so many others listed and no clear policy for or against schools in general. --Dual Freq 23:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't get me wrong. I completely agree with you. There are tons of cruft on here that should definitely be deleted. My issue here is that I am always seeing school articles up for deletion almost every other day. There must be something there if that's the case. MetsFan76 23:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's not up to you. All we've heard so far as your justification for deletion is that you're "not quite sure what makes a middle school/high school notable". I can't speak for all the other "cruft" out there, but this article makes specific claims of notability and provides several reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim. Unless you can offer us something other than your own arbitrary personal distaste for such articles, you don't seem to have much justification for deletion. Alansohn 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I don't really appreciate your tone. This has been a civil conversation between myself and Dual Freq. Obviously, you are more than welcome to join in, but please do it in a more mature fashion. MetsFan76 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that this article should be deleted together "with the rest of the other entries for all other schools on here." is rather unproductive. This is simply not the place to address notability of every single middle school and high school article, nor is this a legitimate reason to support your delete vote. We still haven't heard any justification for your delete vote that addresses this specific article in any fashion. Again, what Wikipedia policy mandates deletion of this specific article? Alansohn 00:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my vote and I am entitled to it. You may not agree with it but you should respect it. After briefly going through your contributions, I noticed that whenever someone votes to delete a school article, you automatically get in their face. Who has the personal bias here? Considering that you are not far removed from a serious 3RR block, I would advise you to watch your tone. MetsFan76 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I look through my edit history, I see thousands of efforts aimed at improving school articles, adding the sources needed to further demonstrate notability for each and every one of these schools. You're entitled to vote as long as you provide a justification. So far, you haven't. Get past the idle threats and start referencing this article, pro or con. Alansohn 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you find the need to provoke me? Like I said, I am entitled to my vote. Not everyone is going to agree with you. Get past your childish behavior and deal with it. I am done discussing this with you as it is neither productive nor mentally stimulating. MetsFan76 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates by policies developed on the basis of consensus. You are entitled to a vote only if it comes with a valid explanation. I encourage you to review Wikipedia:Deletion policy and to reach an understanding of the obligation that comes with your vote to reference specific Wikipedia policies as they relate to the specific article. Anything less should be, and will be, ignored as a vote. Alansohn 01:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I am done discussing this with you. Do I have to repeat myself again? MetsFan76 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's really pointless to continue to try to delete High School articles on principle. High Schools are at least a local landmark, worthy of mention under their community article--all communities are notable. In North America, School Districts are also notable as distinct geo-political divisions, and public High School articles can be merged to the school district article if there is insufficient content to establish notability. So what to do with the High School articles is an editorial decision based on content. Either way, the article remains, either with content, or as a redirect. As this school is a religious school, it should be treated similarly to public schools to avoid bias. Dhaluza 00:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article firmly demonstrates the notability of the subject and meets our WP:A requirements as well. bbx 05:03, 29 March 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.