Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Horizon Christian Academy

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. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizon Christian Academy

Non notable rehabilitation center, supposing notability as a school but with only 12 students that seems unlikely. No attempt to establish notability or add any references since this article was previously deleted - see comment on talk page. Only reference is actually about another organization of the same name who if anything have more chance of claiming this article title instead. Mfield (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established by coverage in third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Keep This likely qualifies as a high school, thus notability doesn't have to be established at all. What makes me say we may have to lean to keep is on their about page, as they offer High School diplomas. This means, according to Arizona law, they are qualified as a "high school" (and a 501(c)), Their website here says they were under construction since 12/07, which means if they don't qualify under wp:schools, they are not notable as other sources can't be found. They are pretty heavy on the religion, but so are all private christian schools. I was on the delete side until I found out they qualified as a high school, (including the first time the article was speedy deleted) but I think we have to pass it like any other high school. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definite high school, see [1]. Only twelve students? Hey, WP:NOTBIGENOUGH would apply there!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, needed to show Notability. A real high school is an important part of its community and inevitably has such evidence of notability. A program for 12 guys is just not inherently or presumptively notable. This "high school" amounts to about one half of one normal classroom. This sort of creeping inclusionism would mean that "The Smith Family Home High School" with two students named Smith would also be automatically notable. Edison (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ due to lack of notability, because I don't see any indication of third-party coverage. However, in its favor, (1) the article is written from an appropriate NPOV perspective (it's not an ad) and (2) regardless of size, a residential rehab program/school such as this one easily may be notable because such schools typically enroll kids from far outside the local area, may be unusual in their methods, and may be controversial. If any sources other than the school's promotional website can be found, this will become a "keep" for me. --Orlady (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Changing to Keep -- that one source establishes sufficient notability for me. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question those that are choosing to delete, are you saying the academy isn't a high school, or that all high schools have to demonstrate notability? PHARMBOY (TALK) 10:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly the second one. Most school articles tend to be merged into an article about the school district in countries that operate on that basis, or a list of schools in some state, county, or other administrative area in other countries. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the concensus is that all High Schools are automatically notable, and all lower schools have to show notability. I would be happy to see a recent precedent to the contrary, but every afd/merge I have seen has followed this example, and most in the essay WP:Schools tended to agree with that. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's a source that has extensive coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the source provided by Phil Bridger, together with others available, clearly meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So we still have only one reference. I don't believe a single story in a local newspaper counts as 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. Mfield (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course the Local Paper can be a reliable source (if I read your comments correctly). If you can find a link showing that the Paper is produced by the school, then it would be different. There is no "Local clause" in WP:RS. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking more at the singular source aspect actually. The criteria for notability says 'significant coverage' in 'sources' plural. I don't think one mention by one local paper meets that requirement. I was not saying that the local paper could not be one such source. Mfield (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That article is not "one mention by one local paper", but rather a long and objectively written article about the school, with several photos. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is still only ONE source, however many pretty photos there are. Mfield (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two sources so we can move on ... TerriersFan (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the facts on the text you are adding. That is a reference and text about a completely different school of the same name in North Carolina. The reference makes it clear where in the country that is and it is not Arizona. That information has already been removed from the article once before. Mfield (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are three sources now, article is established well enough and just meets WP:N so should be kept in my opinion. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2008 (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.