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, though, as noted, references and cleanup would be a good idea. — TKD::Talk 05:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

For a long time the article has failed WP:NOR, and they're non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless third-party sources can be found to address the nominator's valid concerns. Jakew 18:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete common garden-variety secondary school - not notable. MarkBul 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep badly in need of refs/pruning, but that is no reason to delete a page. High schools are unquestionably enecyclopedic subjects. - SimonP 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Question Frankly, I've often wondered whether schools deserve their own articles -- often for precisely this sort of reason: abundant OR and a general absence of citations and sources. But is someone proposing a wholesale closeout of school articles? If so, be prepared for a great hue and cry. If not, what differentiates this article from a thousand like it? As celebrated jurist Lionel Hutz once put it, "There are plenty of people just as guilty as my client: why pick on him"? --Rrburke^(talk) 19:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WAX: Lots of articles exist that shouldn't. This one really deserves to be deleted. GreenJoe 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While in principle I agree, I wish you looooooooooots of luck getting any kind of consensus to delete schools. Bearcat 07:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but severely rewrite. I think we've established by convention that high schools are notable by default, but this article has major, major OR problems and is way too long for a school of this stature. Realkyhick 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that will get done. It's been tagged many times. GreenJoe 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also be open to deleting the article (to get rid of the history) and re-creating as a stub. GreenJoe 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Where is the evidence for consensus to keep all schools? All cities are notable - all streets are not. Without an explicit statement, the burden is on the article to prove notability. MarkBul 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. An established precedent does effectively count as de facto policy, even in the absence of an explicit policy statement, unless someone can come up with a convincing reason why the article in question doesn't qualify under the precedent. Bearcat 07:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking any verification of notability with reliable, independent sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a Google search indicates that the article is perfectly expandable and verifiable. There is enough within the article that is notable. TerriersFan 04:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article needs improvement but that is not a reason to delete the article. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable alumni are sufficient to justify a high school as being notable. DGG (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per alumni - Fosnez 07:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is in need of a cleanup but a search indicates it can potentially pass WP:N and WP:V. Camaron1 | Chris 10:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school. Eusebeus 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though it needs some cleanup, reasonably notable school. It serves a large student body (1800), and book was written about it, as well as chapter in an organizational development book. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable by virtue of being a school, and for some of the specific achievements listed above. Needs work, not deletion. --Gpollock 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep article makes explicit claims of notability, and there are reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Article needs to be significantly pruned and reformatted to put it into a more encyclopedic tone and in Wikipedia format. Alansohn 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It certainly is notable as it was a prototype school in the whole region to minimize outside distraction (but this design failed). Last year's top graduating student scores the highest in the York Region. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. I was under the impression that notability isn't inherited. Doesn't this apply to the alumni-school relationship? --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep per Alansohn. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A view of the other participants in this and other similar AfDs will show that this impression is mostly incorrect. It is true that attendance at a notable school, such as this one, does not make all alumni of the school notable. However, there is very clear consensus that one factor in demonstrating the notability of a school is the notability of its alumni. A school, especially a high school like this one, plays a crucial role in establishing and molding the future notable, be it as a politician, athlete, scientist, actor or musician. Contrary to the argument espoused by an adamant, but very small, minority, it is explicitly the school's role in fashioning notable alumni that is one of the many factors that demonstrates a school's notability. After all, the school isn't "inheriting" notability; it's a big part of creating the notability in the first place. Alansohn 23:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'm willing to accept that. (So long as it's not a "This is where Famous Person X went" article, which this doesn't appear to be. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is true that some editors use notable, ahem "notable" alum to justify keeping these otherwise wholly unnotable schools, but it is a logical contrivance, pablum and little else besides. Unless there is a clear, substantive correlation between an individual's notability and their school (and at that point it matters little what level), this is a false argument. Absent consensus on high school notability (and there is no consensus in any language wikipedia that high schools are notable), this is the kind of masquerade that gets trotted out. Eusebeus 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've never liked the consensus in favour of high schools (they're generally about as inherently notable as my bedroom), but as long as the consensus is what it is, I haven't seen a convincing reason to treat this article differently from any of the others. Keep. Bearcat 07:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this bad article on this proven-notable school. This one meets WP:Notability hands down. And I am not going to make a tasteless joke about the notability of Bearcat's bedroom. I am not going to make a tasteless joke about the notability of Bearcat's bedroom. I am not ... Noroton 15:29, 2 September 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.