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 keep - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually no content here, and this information already at List of high schools in New Hampshire. Dyslexic agnostic 21:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Schools. David Johnson [T|C] 21:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Keep now that it has been expanded. David Johnson [T|C] 23:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: before anyone else says it, I know the stuff at Wikipedia:Schools isn't policy, but I think the criteria given there are fair. David Johnson [T|C] 21:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the whole proposal. It calls for merging substubs, but not deletion. In fact using merges as an alternative to substubs and AFDs, was the whole basis of the compromise. A merge/redirect, allows for an editor in the future, to expand information on the school, and undo the redirect, making a full sized article --Rob 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You beat me to it rob.Gateman1997 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator specified that there was nothing to merge as the content was already at List of high schools in New Hampshire... David Johnson [T|C] 23:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added a few sentences and a link to the school history. This should be sufficient to allow someone to expand the article. Movementarian 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Jcuk 22:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletions. -- Rob 22:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with district unless expanded to meet and hopefully surpass WP:SCH.Gateman1997 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most high schools have articles. There's enough here to be worthy of expansion. -Drdisque 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 23:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very little of the information is in the list. CalJW 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with duistrict. There is inadequate information to justify maintaining a separate article. Denni ☯ 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and do not merge). Meets notability. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not a requirement of school articles per the new WP:SCH proposal.Gateman1997 04:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read further... that's not consensus! Dyslexic agnostic 05:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's not consensus? Consensus was reached weeks ago that the WP:SCH requirements should guide us, and notability wasn't one of them (and mind you I wish it were but I'm realistic).Gateman1997 06:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable school. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while there *might* be some consensus that some schools should be merged, there is no consensus that they should ever be deleted, so listing on AfD is not appropriate unless a hoax is suspected. 35,000 Google hits tells me this is a real school. Turnstep 18:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a notable school. --Terence Ong ^Talk 14:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this school is notable too Yuckfoo 02:28, 6 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.