Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas High School Douglas Wyoming

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. WP:SNOW. There are no references? WP:SOFIXIT. Also, please mind that moving an article during an AfD causes admin headaches. The Bushranger One ping only 04:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas High School Douglas Wyoming

[edit]
Douglas High School Douglas Wyoming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:V as it fails to show sources to prove its notability or existence. Dead end that not even can be redirected to its schooldistrict, due to that one not existing. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which was done within seconds of my post. Scary. Thanks, Carrite. Dru of Id (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per standard practice for high schools of confirmed existence. I've taken the liberty of renaming the piece and added some basic information and a source confirming a couple previously unsubstantiated assertions. Stub articles grow over time, there is nothing wrong with them that a little work won't fix. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: have added link to its official webpage on School District website, while stub-sorting it. Why did this come to AfD, when it was so easy to expand the substub? PamD 15:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Pavlovian reflex is an absolute joke. Nobody does a thing about bad articles, but when you AfD it everybody wakes up and starts yelling. Sorry, lads and lasses, for a reliable encyclopedia, you need reliable and useful articles. And I am bold enough to reach that by any means. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why... Carrite (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold is one thing. Going against long-established consensus because you don't happen to agree with it is entirely another. Stating you are bold enough "to reach that [i.e. what you want, not what the community wants] by any means" is starting to look worryingly like disruptive behaviour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you see the wish for good articles as disruptive behaviour and you think that the community does not want reliable and useful articles? Come on... Night of the Big Wind talk 16:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:N: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, (...)
Again from WP:N: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
From WP:V: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The citation should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found.
Which statements in this article have been challenged or are likely to be challenged? There's nothing controversial there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again from WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
Ergo, an article needs sources or can be challenged. If an articles has no reliable sources to prove its notability, I have the right to challenge the whole article. You don't like my method? No problem! Just add sources and I have no reason to challenge it. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has sources. Enough to verify the school exists and verify the non-controversial statements of which the article consists. Ergo, this debate comes down only to notability, not verifiability. Ergo, much of what you have just quoted is irrelevant. Have you noticed the number of "keep" votes in this debate? In other similar debates? That's consensus. You are usually a lone or almost lone dissenting voice. Continually claiming that you are right and everyone else is wrong, which is effectively what you are doing, is unproductive. Continually nominating secondary school articles for deletion when you know full well that consensus is to keep them and that's almost certainly the way the AfD debate will go is disruptive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Practice is ahead of policy on schools. Over the course of years a rough and widely held consensus has emerged that high schools are to be presumed notable in the same way that villages, rivers, highways, and professional athletes are presumed notable, based upon verified existence. Elementary schools, on the other hand, are being presumed non-notable and redirected unless massive and overwhelming evidence of their source-based "specialness" is presented. There has been no RFC to confirm or reverse this long-running actual practice, it is what it is. The theory behind it is sound and there is no reason to believe that a reversal would occur if there were an RFC — biographies often include reference to the high school of their subject by name; it makes no sense for massive numbers of these links to be red. Moreover, high schools are presumed to be featured in extensive coverage of their construction, their sports teams, their musical concerts, their extracurricular clubs, and so forth. They are landmarks of their communities. On the other hand, there is no such pressing need to "preserve" blue links of elementary schools as they are seldom mentioned by name. Rather than wasting everyone's time fighting over the sourcing of pieces for hundreds of thousands of schools around the globe, the grand compromise has emerged between those favoring a narrow and focused encyclopedia and those favoring a broad and inclusive encyclopedia to auto-keep high schools and auto-redirect elementary schools to their school district or city. It is a compromise that works. It is a compromise that has been upheld many hundreds of times over the years by closing administrators. It is not a compromise that is universally accepted, per this particular nomination. Carrite (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed? I just want proof, in line with WP:V. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_High_School_Douglas_Wyoming&oldid=1088297065"