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 Delete.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short entry on a completely unremarkable K12 school, one of the apparently 105,000 K12 schools in the USA alone[1]. Having an article for each and every one of them would make Wikipedia truly an indiscriminate collection of information. Fram 11:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete school articles with no assertion of importance. Glancing at a Google search, [2] I'm not even sure such an assertion is possible here. --W.marsh 14:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per W.marsh -Shazbot85^Talk 16:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Marsh. JoshuaZ 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Now redirect per Silensor's actions since GFDL forces the matter. JoshuaZ 22:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn.-Kmaguir1 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn —Khoikhoi 02:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per W.marsh, no assertion of (verifiable) importance. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability in the article, no evidence of notability in the google results W.marsh linked to above. GRBerry 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools. This is yet another example of something that should have been resolved by placing the {{cleanup-school}} tag on the talk page. I am now in the process of rewriting and expanding this article, and invite anyone interested to lend me a hand. Silensor 19:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I see nothing in your essay that would make me reconsider deleting this article, and your rewrite has, for the moment, no compelling reason to do so either. Arguments about other articles that merit inclusion even less are not valid in this AfD. Basically, either you think that every school is notable per se, and thus should be kept (your position), or you consider each school on its own merits (my position), since there are many, many, many schools worldwide, and most of them would have extremely similar and highly non informative articles which don't convey any important information. One difference between schools and vilages is that for every person, the first info given is his date of birth and death, and the place of birth and death. Schools, certainly before the age of 18 or thereabouts, are very rarely given. This indicates, in my view, that most people don't consider what school someone went to as that important, and that they are from a historic, encyclopedic point of view not much more important than a post office, a bakery or a playground. Unless a school has some truly distinguishing feature, a remarkable history, or some other characteristic that makes it noteworthy or important, it should be deleted or merged to the article about the location it serves. Fram 19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per W.marsh. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school; and Dank U wel Fram for a well-reasoned response. Carlossuarez46 23:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, provides no claim to notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing special about this school. Going with BEEFSTEW too. Recent developments reguarding OTRS, that school articles are by far the most frequent sources of libelous content. The unmaintainablity and indescriminant collection of information across many articles that some of these super-stub school articles contain are dangerous. Kevin_b_er 06:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be really great if you could substantiate that somehow. The bulk of vandalism that I see is done to professional wrestlers, then politicians, and then some of the more interesting sex acts we document, not schools. We should probably semi-protect the entire Wikipedia if we're worried about libelous content. With any luck, the German solution underway will obviate these sort of problems completely. Silensor 08:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone from OTRS here talks about a rather large amount of complaints about libelous content is comming from school articles. With other reasoning, including this one, many of these types of articles should be merged into more managable mini-list, esspecially for schools which we can't come up with very many facts, they could be better watched on small lists. Kevin_b_er 15:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having read that discussion, I didn't see anything which provided metrics, but I naturally I would agree that anything which is potentially-libellous and unsourced in *any* article should be removed without question. As for the article at hand, which has a very clean record, I have merged the contents into the Rochester Hills, Michigan page as suggested above until more information can be provided to expand from. The closing administrator may want to take note of this in order to maintain compliance with GFDL version 1.2 licensing. Silensor 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Silensor. GFDL compliance is a necessity. --Myles Long 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm kind of disturbed that it could be used as a backdoor way to prevent consensus from deleting an article, though... --W.marsh 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused. I ... don't understand. What about the GFDL necessitates keeping this data, or am I not understanding that either? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we do need to preserve article histories if text from one article is merged to another... but I don't think that was intended as a last-ditch effort to thwart deletion. --W.marsh 03:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable for people in Rochester Hills, Michigan. bbx 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as, undoubtedly, is every billboard, local controversy, etc., it doesn't make it notable for WP. Carlossuarez46 23:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep informative article for those interested in the school in particular, or education in Rochester Hills in general. Kappa 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All high schools are important and hundreds have been kept. Piccadilly 01:36, 3 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.