Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. E. Smith High School

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. / Nom withdrawn. Clearly I had a search fail. We don't need to spend more time on this Star Mississippi 20:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E. E. Smith High School[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing this here for discussion as it has been deleted, redirected throughout its history. I am unable to find significant, independent coverage of the school, nor is the Orange Street location's listing on the historical register enough to convey notability on the school. A redirect to Cumberland County Schools or Fayetteville,_North_Carolina#High_schools_(grades_9–12) would make sense. Star Mississippi 02:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and North Carolina. Star Mississippi 02:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tons of regional coverage of this nearly 100-year-old high school. Generally, I only support deleting high schools if they entirely lack any sort of coverage, but this school does not meet that. It's got a pretty storied history as with many high schools its age: [1], [2], [3]. Namely, it was the site of many desegregation protests which sadly are not mentioned in the article. It even managed to get a dissertation [4]. (Note that this dissertation was cited in the Harvard University Press book A Class of Their Own: Black Teachers in the Segregated South, so any worries about it not being a good enough source can be put to rest.) I can shift through more routine sports announcements if needed, but with over 500 Newspaper.com results, I am pretty certain it meets GNG. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Available sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's long been held here that placement on the NRHP is more than a presumption of notability; except in rare cases, it's proof, due to the extensive amount of data required for an NRHP nomination to be approved. The nomination document itself is enough to show GNG is met. I don't see any problem with that here. Star Mississippi, I'd be interested in why you specifically said it wasn't. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responding before I close, IP 69. It is no longer in the building, having occupied it until a new building was constructed/opened in 1954. The former building is notable, but that IMO doesn't make the school notable when it no longer occupies the building. Closing the nom so as not to waste editors' time, but happy to continue this on the article's talk or mine if you think helpful. Star Mississippi 20:21, 8 June 2023 (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.