Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSIHSIS

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 — Caknuck 18:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSIHSIS[edit]

nn school. ~~Article really isn't about the school itself, but is simply a vanity article by its creator, who has made sure his own name is mentioned as often as possible.~~ Prod removed without comment. Resolute 05:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I've cleaned up the article to remove the creator's traces of vanity (it really is vanity to drop your name everywhere in an article you write!). Has some sort of non-trivial mention in at least these websites external to the school itself: [1], [2], and [3]. Resurgent insurgent 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good job. I'm still not convinced of this school's notability, but I am willing to withdraw the nom if you guys do believe that this school is notable. Resolute 13:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on revisions - I think being a high school by itself gives it notability on wikipedia (based on the fact that pretty much every high school has a page on here). However, I'd also suggest a Move from acronym to full text Corpx 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In its present form this is nothing more than a directory-style entry. It is a very new school and unlikely to have established its notability. Dahliarose 14:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been expanded considerably since I first looked at it with the addition of several references. It still doesn't do a very good job of telling us why it is notable but, judging by the material in the references, the potential is there. It really needs a good strong lead and a focus on the unique qualities of the school (why do the Asperger's pupils not get a mention?) Dahliarose 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just made numerous additions, including adding information from two articles in the Staten Island Advance daily newspaper that focus on the school, as well as information from a few other sources. This means the school meets WP:N criteria. While the school isn't unique, it's definitely among the more unusual among the almost 160 public high schools in New York City. I hope everyone who's voted for it so far will take another look because it's really another article. I'm concerned about additions of employee (well, coach) names in the athletic section, and the student names bother me as well. I've asked the editor who put them there to reconsider that. Noroton 15:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two Staten Island Advance articles was found as a reprint at the Web site of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I think we can trust that foundation to be accurate in reprinting it. If I can find the article at the newspaper's Web site, I'll change the footnote. Noroton 16:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the basketball info again - it is part of the same vanity that the article creator tried to start the article off with. He seems intent on keeping his name on the article somehow. Resolute 16:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though Noroton thinks I'm going to go in the other direction :). I read over this article four or five times and it just marginally meets my qualifications for notability but doing a google search on this school showed me that there's still a lot of material out there to expand this article - easily enough to meet WP:N. I think it could stand to lose that table in the athletics subsection though. Also... the current revision is much stronger than it was when the AfD was initially proposed. Trusilver 23:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revised version of article due to demonstrated significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, satisfying WP:V and WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:34, 26 June 2007 (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.