Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newellton High School

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 no consensus. Whereas the keep voters have provided some sources, the delete voters were not convinced with the quality of the sources. Concerning the copyvio charges, I (albeit vriefly) checked the current verson and the foundational version, and I was not able to detect any copyvio. For the time being, I am just keeping the article--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newellton High School[edit]

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

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

This AfD nomination is part of an ongoing contributor copyright investigation.

This subject is not notable; I checked Google Books, News, and Newspapers. Every reference used is either unreliable or refers to this (defunct) high school in passing. Half of the pictures used are of the headstones of former faculty, which is rather morbid and off-topic. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it is true that Google Books, News, and Newspapers did not find anything useful related to this school, I was able to find a source from Shreveport, Louisiana. If you type "Parent-teacher group may sue because of brawl at the school" into Google or Newspapers.com (I have access to it), you will find a news story from 2006. Shreveport is far enough from the school in order for it to be independent. I have only done a cursory search so far, but I will do more by the end of this week. I have not written my comment as a !vote just yet. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt you will turn up much more, and make something of this article, but I would be glad to be wrong. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am just finding so many trivial mentions to the point I am concerned that I am missing out on the important stuff. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second. I found another source from Mississippi in 1913. Here you go.
I also found another source from 1951. Here you go again. It appears that there is a crap ton of coverage at the state level. They are independent because they are often several counties away. I might change my !vote to keep. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your "state level" source is like 2 towns away from the school is located and it's hardly a regional or national news outlet. So it doesn't really work. Also, I you haven't even voted and therefore I'm not sure how you can change your vote to keep ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article looks like it doesn't fit the whole "audience" thing due to being made up of mostly "trivial", local information that wouldn't be relevant to a broad audience. For instance, the pictures of the gravestones of formers teachers. While things like that would be good for a local blog post, they are way to local for Wikipedia IMO. Also, from what I can tell the two "notable" alumni are extremely questionably notable (likely their articles could be AfDed also). I'm not sure what else there is though beyond extremely local, "niche" information that could be added to the article so it could be notable though. Since there just isn't the in-depth coverage out there about the school that would be needed for guidelines like WP:NORG. I mean, it is a high school. So that's not surprising. Ultimately, I think we are "missing the important stuff" because there isn't anything important about the high school. At least when it comes to Wikipedia's standards of what is important for articles/notability and what isn't. BTW Vami_IV, cool signature. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep maybe merge There is more to life than Google. We are judging on the possibility that references exist- not that they have been found! We don't mention teachers so some stuff must go- but details of depopulation and the closure is of interest to some general EU readers- let them read it and judge. The depopulation and closure was discussed by schoolboards so will have press coverage. As is it looks like a start class missing infobox. ClemRutter (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Find that press coverage, and then post it. Don't just say it exists. Coming to AfD and going, "but it has to have coverage!" accomplishes literally nothing unless you're going to add those sources. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools should be presumed to be notable because it's very difficult for a high school to exist without being written about in reliable sources. A quick search turned up [1], [2], [3], and there's plenty more where that came from to satisfy WP:GNG and to write a proper article.----Pontificalibus 15:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In light of the new sources provided, I have decided to change my !vote to keep. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's the deal with the edit waring (small w) over this being closed or not? While I'm of the opinion that it should be relisted, it has been open for 7 days now. So, closing as no consensus or relisting it should both be viable options. Maybe the people doing the edit waring (small w) can just go with one and be done with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1: It's not an "edit war" as such; it's a WP:LTA impersonating established users, and some of us reverting said LTA. I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept; I haven't even glanced at the article and probably neither has the LTA. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know. That's why I said "small w." I don't think it rises to the level of violating the edit warring policies or anything, but I have received like 5 email alerts because of the back and forth in the last day or two. So really it should be dealt with either way. If it's because of an LTA (and I'm not saying it isn't) then that should be taken up with ANI or whatever. Since clearly the back and forth isn't accomplishing anything. That's all. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure most admins and CUs are already aware of this LTA. Socks are already being blocked and locked on sight, so there's not much more to be done. If the page is protected, they'll just pick another AFD. An ANI thread would just give them the attention they crave. WP:RBI is the way to go. Again, their actions are irrelevant to the outcome of this AFD; they just picked it at random and probably haven't read it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree. Except point 2 of RBI does say "Block the user committing the vandalism without comment (or, if you're not an administrator, ask one to do it for you)" and it would be useful to the amount of needless email people who are subscribed to this are getting if nothing else. Plus, your already giving the person attention by reverting them repeatedly anyway. I don't see anywhere in the RBI article where it says to stop at 1 and just do that one thing over and over indefinitely. Also, if it's been 7 days and the AfD could technically be closed as no consensus at this point then doing so isn't really abuse is it? So, for me this seems like a personal issue between a couple of editors that need to work it out and not just just a vandalism thing. Maybe the user closing it has a history of this type of stuff, but I really don't care if them closing it as no consensus is "correct" in this case. It's not like they can't be blocked and the AfD can be closed at the same time either. They aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, it would have been better if I had just waited until they were blocked before reverting. That's always a judgement call. But yes, impersonating another user is always abuse, even if the edits stand on the merits. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've semi-protected this page to prevent the on-going disruption. Any admin please feel free to remove the protection if you feel this is overkill. GirthSummit (blether) 10:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable high school that just happened to close down. I assume whoever wrote it must've had a connection to it. Poor way to immortalize it. AdoTang (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having mostly trivia, copyvio concerns to offline sources, concerns per nom, a complete lack of reliable sources in the article itself, a lack of sources presented as to saving. If we don't delete I vote a complete rewrite/nuking because this content cannot be trusted to be clean. Sennecaster (What now?) 01:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the three articles I posted above containing in-depth coverage, sufficient to satisfy WP:NSCHOOL? ---Pontificalibus 04:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question of "in-depth" coverage aside, all of your sources are local and there has to regional/national coverage for something to be considered notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not true. While WP:ORG requires regional or national coverage, WP:GNG does not. And WP:NSCHOOL makes it clear that schools are notable if they satisfy GNG alone.----Pontificalibus 12:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC recently (herethat determined the proper notability guidelines for secondary schools is WP:NORG, not WP:GNG. So, actually, your the one saying the thing that isn't true here. Also, it's slightly weird and pretty circular to cite WP:NORG as a way to make a case that WP:NORG doesn't matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC was on whether the mere verified existence of a school was sufficient to give a presumption of notability. It most certainly did not conclude that policy should be changed to require that schools pass WP:ORG instead of WP:GNG. The current policy at WP:NSCHOOL is quite clear - schools only need to satisfy GNG - therefore the coverage by non-local sources as required at the more stringent WP:ORGDEPTH is not necessary. ----Pontificalibus 14:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSCHOOL as a policy is a part of WP:ORG and your the one literally saying we need to follow WP:NSCHOOL. Your the one that brought it up. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK let me say it another way - WP:NSCHOOL states we either need to satisfy WP:ORG or GNG. Non-local coverage is not required by GNG, so the sources I posted above are good for a pass. If you think it is confusing that WP:NSCHOOL is contained within WP:ORG and refers to the notability requirements of the rest of WP:ORG vs GNG, you could always propose splitting WP:NSCHOOL to a new page or otherwise rewording it.----Pontificalibus 06:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, now I realize what the problem is. Originally I had meant to reference an RfC about the SNG versus the GNGs or what people in Wikiprojects come up with. I guess I linked to (and referenced) the wrong RfC article though. So that was my bad. The point is, WP:SNG is clear that they help clarify the GNG for exactly these types of articles and should not simply be ignored for other, more broad standards. The point in the RfC for schools and how it relates is that it was determined that high schools shouldn't be treated any differently when it comes to notability then any other type of organization. In other words, they don't merit special standards simply for being schools, and every other type of organization is notable if they pass WP:NORG. While I'm aware of the clause that you mentioned, simply going with that alone without considering the things I have would be extreme cherry picking. Really, WP:NORG is an extremely low bar to pass anyway. That said, your sources still don't fit WP:GNG or other guidelines anyway IMO for reasons I don't really feel like going into (mostly WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS, but I don't think it's worth litigating). --Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated it for notability, a deletion on that basis precludes immediate recreation. If you want it deleted due to copyright content, an AfD nomination is not the correct procedure.----Pontificalibus 06:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. I nominated it for deletion with these words: This AfD nomination is part of an ongoing contributor copyright investigation. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s clearly a nomination for lack of notability, which is what the participants including you have spent their time addressing. As there is clearly no consensus to delete, turning up at the end and asking keep voters to reconsider based on copyright grounds isn’t going to cut it. Copyright violations are addressed via our policy here which doesn’t include AfD. --Pontificalibus 09:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus on whether the subject meets WP:NSCHOOL yet.

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is certainly not the ideal place for dealing with copyright problems. The gigantic banner on the main AfD page mentions so.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is so much detailed coverage in local media (e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) that I don't see how it can be argued this doesn't pass GNG and thus WP:NSCHOOL. ----Pontificalibus 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: It has been demonstrated above that there is coverage enough for an article about the school, but said article is still a Billy Hathorn article. So I propose this: I send this article to WP:CP for speedy, presumptive deletion, and while it awaits that, a new article is written to replace it. I am absolutely willing to put my money where my mouth is, if someone with Newspapers.com access will assist me. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2021 (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/Newellton_High_School&oldid=1036038105"