Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Airy 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 Snow Keep as this is another example where, regardless of history, high schools themselves are in fact notable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Airy High School

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

Page was created by user with history of vandalism - probably for the purpose of listing his high school in 2nd place in the top ranking high school. Suspicious and unsourced. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Above reasons MordeKyle (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Coverage of this high school is abundant in reliable sources, the school was founded over 120 years ago, and it has a very famous alumni, Andy Griffith. Indisputably notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andy Griffith is the icing on the cake here. Significant alumnus whose hometown had a major impact on Mayberry. Article definitely needs some improvement, but the local high school there is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a high school, it exists, it's notable. Sources absolutely exist. No reason to delete. Our unofficial motto is "AfD is not cleanup", which I believe applies here. Fieari (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long standing consensus on secondary schools. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - judging by the news coverage this school does nothing but sports, which sounds a little alarming, but clearly notable. I've done a bit of cleanup and deleted a particularly bad sentence, which is a copyvio from the official website. Blythwood (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although created by a trouble maker the page has been improved, and can be improved further. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if Griffith didn't go there, I'd still !vote keep. The community wisely decided long ago to retain secondary schools so editors don't have to waste their time fleshing out and debating the articles of tens of thousands of such schools. --Oakshade (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The diff from the time of the nomination shows that the source from WXII-TV Channel 12 was in the article at the time of nomination. This evidence contradicts the assertion in the nomination that the article was unsourced, as well as the statement of the one delete !vote that is referenced to the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being unspecific. What I meant to say is that this edit [[1]] by same author which probably was what prompted him to create this page, was suspicious and unsourced. Dhrm77 (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:V#Notability requires one third-party source. The requirement in WP:N that a topic be worthy of notice is realized by WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, which states, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Unscintillating (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no problem with keeping the page as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as long as it can be improved. Dhrm77 (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2016 (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.