Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Brearley 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 keep. --Coredesat 03:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Brearley High School[edit]

David Brearley High School (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable school, per WP:SCHOOL (which is a guideline), has only two notable alumni, a football player and recent porn star. I don't doubt the school verifiably exists but it is not notable enough for an article. Prod was contested with "consensus is public high schools are notable by definition" Steve 01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The proffered AfD justification contradicts itself: WP:SCHOOL criteria specifies #6) "The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC)." Both individuals have articles in compliance with WP:BIO. Perhaps you might want to start by having those articles deleted first via AfD, and then come back to this one. Alansohn 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Furthermore, the school has been covered by multiple, independent, verifiable, non-trivial works in a major newspaper, in compliance with criterion 1, and is one of 16 out of 1000+ schools in teh state of New Jersey that participates in an inter-district admissions plan, which covers criterion 4. What part of WP:SCHOOL does this school not meet? Alansohn 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And just in case anyone is confused, WP:SCHOOL is not a guideline. -- Visviva 16:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:SCHOOL is the standard that was used to justify deleting this article. The article clearly and explicitly passes the standard the nominator incorrectly claims that it fails. Alansohn 01:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not nearly notable enough. I have no idea who came up with the idea that high schools are automatically notable, but it's stupid. -Amarkov babble 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Schools are inherently notable. -- Librarianofages 01:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Saying it won't make it so, and you might want to take at some recent AfDs where the closing admins didn't think very highly of the claim. In fact, schools have recently been deleted. JoshuaZ 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Only notable schools are inherently notable, and the existence of this one - which is largely all that's proven by the sources and a quick Google - doesn't make it notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep - The fact that Siragusa attended it gets it over the proposed guideline. Again, as with a number of schools, this may demonstrate a flaw in the proposal rather than the notability of the school, but this isn't the place to hash that out. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment having looked at this a little more, we'll be breaking off the tiniest tip of the iceberg if this one gets deleted, given the List of high schools in New Jersey. Most that I looked at are as non-notable as the above. --Steve 01:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High schools are almost always notable. Middle schools and primary schools are rarely notable. Why does someone try to change this precedent every day on Afd? --- RockMFR 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because we believe it's wrong, maybe? There is no reason why schools should be inherently notable, any more than parks should be. -Amarkov babble 02:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, merely a comment: if your aim is to reverse the attitude that high schools are assumed notable, might I suggest that you propose a policy change, ratehr than sniping at individual articles to try to establish a precedent, when, if there is one thing Wiki~ isn't, it's precedent-driven. Of course, if you're one of the Cabal, then it doesn't matter, because what you say is Wiki-law, and no one is allowed to dissent. -- Simon Cursitor
  • There isn't any "policy" that all high schools are notable, simply a precedent in that many of their AfDs end in no consensus keeps or outright keeps. But deletions do occasionally occur. JoshuaZ 16:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Football and porn? I think that is enough, we are not made of paper after all. Oh, and WP:SCHOOL is a proposed guideline, not a guideline. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, it's only a proposed guideline and not the real McCoy yet. That said, it's the nearest thing to an empirical determination of notability of schools that we have. Additionally, per WP:RS, we need more than just proof of existence for the school to be notable even if we overlook WP:SCHOOLS. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what's amazing? Anytime a school meets some stupid criterion of WP:SCHOOL, school inclusionists say "keep because it passes WP:SCHOOL," but anytime a school manages to not meet the loosest of criteria, school inclusionists bring up how WP:SCHOOL can't be used because it isn't policy (even though they want it to be policy because it would allow 99.9% of schools to be kept). -- Kicking222 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to assert notability.--Húsönd 02:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other keeps †he Bread 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All Google results [1] point to either government reports (which are indiscriminate regarding notability) or trivial mentions of the school. Even if fully expanded the article will never become more than a carbon copy of the school's website. Delete. Kavadi carrier 03:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google is not the sum of all knowledge. There have to be local newspaper articles out there. And I think Tony Siragusa is a big enough name to give this school notability. When's the last time a high school got deleted, anyway? Zagalejo 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The school has 235 mentions by its full name, with "high school" (excludes "School X plays David Brearley today"), in NewsBank since 2000. This includes mentions in The Star-Ledger, Asbury Park Press, Burlington County Times, Staten Island Advance, and a bunch more. -newkai t-c 05:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An excellent example of why one should be carefull using search engines to deny notability. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, no it isn't. It's an example of how not to use search engines to assert notability. It's just an argument from counting search engine hits again, but simply using a different search engine to the usual one. In contrast Kavadi carrier, above, has actually read what xyr chosen search engine turned up. If Newkai does the same, then xe will have made a proper case. Uncle G 09:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many of those articles are mere mentions, that don't actually give any in-depth information about the school? And how many are in-depth articles about the school? Please cite them. If you can cite multiple in-depth articles that don't just mention the school but actually are detailed articles about the school, you can demonstrate that the WP:SCHOOL criteria are satisfied (and, at the same time, provide a proper basis for writing an article). You haven't actually made that case yet. All that you have done so far is count search engine hits. Counting search engine hits isn't research. Actually reading the articles that the search engine turns up is research. Uncle G 09:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't consider actual newspaper articles "search engine hits". While it's true that just about all, if not completely all of the articles mention the school in passing, it indicates that it's an important location in New Jersey. If someone is reading a newspaper article and the school's name comes up, where are they going to go for more information? Wikipedia. -newkai t-c 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Also, I do not buy that BS that all high schools are inherently notable, they have to PROOVE why they are notable. I'm sick of these people who vote "Keep" on every article with school in its name. TJ Spyke 05:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Largely per precedent. As a general rule, to simply say delete because you disagree with an Overwhelming Precedent is bad form. As has been said, we're not made of paper. We have the capacity to handle such articles, and it's somewhat akin to trolling to nominate all such articles for deletion disregarding precedent. Precedent, while not explicitly, is a very good guide.Xeinart 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xeinart is wise.

    • Actually, that's exactly backwards. It's the invocation of precedent, which is simply the fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument once again, which is bad form. Every subject should be considered on its own merits. I suggest that you discard the idea of precedent and instead follow the example of Newkai above, who actually has the right idea but simply hasn't followed it through and made a proper case yet. Uncle G 09:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry it took so long to respond to this, I only just read it. Firstly, at the risk of coming off as way too pretentious for my own good, I ask you to use terms properly. What you described is not fallacious at all. Having said that, the gist of precedent is not "If article X then article Y", it's "If the merits of article X are the same as the merits of article Y, article X was kept, and merits are the determining factor in a keep or do not situation, then article Y should be kept." I hope that helps to clarify.Xeinart 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just want to say, excellent clarification. If only more editors could articulatly clirify their position, then there would be only real conflicts, not merely percieved ones. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:School, and why do people think its enough to say 'keep' with the assertion 'All schools are inherently notable'? Are they? Why? Justify yourself. Amists 10:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per all above. Jcuk 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kavadi. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Besides, if we're to lean so heavily on WP:V and WP:RS when discussing people, websites, wikis, bands, etc. (and I'm not saying that's a bad idea), then I don't see why schools should be excluded. Shimeru 10:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all schools are notable, WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. As long it has a notable alumni, that's good enough. --Terence Ong (C | R) 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What? WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia does not in any way justify the claim that 'All schools are notable'. I could equally invoke WP:NOT a directory to argue the other way. Why are all schools inherently notable. Justify yourself. Or do you mean 'All schools with a notable ex-student are notable, thus satisfying wp:school'? You have made two different claims with your two sentences Amists 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - WP:SCHOOL is not a guideline, in spite of the nominator's misguided attempts to pass it off as one. The well established precedent is that these kinds of articles are kept. No rational is advanced for deletion. The topic is encyclopaedic and verifiable. I'm not sure what else there is to say. WilyD 14:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh, how I hate these school articles... But I know when I'm beaten. Wikipedia has become infested with non-notable school articles, and this is another one. But there's a claque that votes to keep any article with the word "school" in the title, and they seem to outweigh the ( slightly less organised ) bunch of anti-"school" people, so the cruft accumulates. The entire issue has become a holy war for some people, so the best thing to do is just to let them have their way. In twenty or thirty years the issue will have died down, and the next generation can work out what to do. I reckon there are about 40-50 dedicated "any school is notable" people, and they can't possibly keep all the school articles updated reliably and efficiently, so in a couple of decades someone will suggest hiving off all the school articles to a separate directory, and the facts on the ground at that time will drive the case. In the meantime, let them have their victory: it's a poisoned chalice. WMMartin 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found these articles on Factiva. Most are written by the same person and come from the same newspaper, but they are about the school.
    • Jett, Jason. "Harmonic convergence - Brearley band rising to hit crescendo". The Star Ledger. 18 May 2005. p. 19.
    • Jett, Jason. "Corporate courting - Apprentice goes to school". The Star Ledger. 12 May 2005. p. 21
    • Jett, Jason. "Catapulting into golfing ingenuity - Calculus students have ball in version of 'Junkyard Wars'". The Star Ledger. 15 June 2004.
    • Russo, Lorie. "Two school projects fight prejudice". The Star-Ledger. 7 June 2001. p. 1
    • Jett, Jason. "Charges of politics surround report on performance at Brearley". The Star Ledger. 10 April 2001. p. 39
    • Jett, Jason. "School choice eases student shortage - State program boosts enrollment at Kenilworth's David Brearley high". The Star Ledger 23 April 2000. p. 33.
    • Spotto, MaryAnn. "Judge: School board did not violate student vandal's rights". The Star-Ledger. 12 January 1999. p. 39
    • Ginsburg, Elisabeth. "This Town Will Die Without Our School". The New York Times. 6 June 1993. p. 1 Zagalejo 15:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I am not going to 'vote' either way here, as I've gotten tired of these AfD's for high schools (and I typically support the AfD's and strongly feel that all high schools are NOT inherently notable), I did just want to make the comment that newspaper articles, especially local ones, are not good sources for proving notability for the simple reason that virtually all schools, including middle schools and elementary schools, are going to have numerous articles about them specifically in their local papers. All schools are important enough to the locals to get discussed regularly in the local papers; then again, so are all hospitals and pretty much all restaurants too, and we don't have articles on them... --The Way 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people on AfDs appeal to standards such as WP:SCHOOLS, WP:CORP, WP:BIO, etc, and then try to manufacture new qualifications that are simply unstated in the guidelines in question? WP:SCHOOLS first qualification states that "The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles..." I see nothing that specifies the size or nature of the publications that would merit inclusion. Furthermore, both publications mentioned -- The Star-Ledger and The New York Times -- are major regional and national newspapers of unimpeachable notability. That the "multiple non-trivial published works" clause of WP:SCHOOLS has been met is undeniable (but it will be denied anyway). Alansohn 23:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to the reasons posted above, I'd also point out that the article is young and will likely grow as more people come across it on this debate. School's are an important (and yes, notable) part of our culture, and it's kind of depressing to see good potential articles get nominated for deletion before they even have a chance to grow. →Bobby← 15:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Notability, at least with respect to article importance, is in the eye of the beholder. This school meets my personal criteria for notability. Hence my preference. — RJH (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Right now, I'm not interested in this school. But maybe tomorrow, who knows, and then I will be glad to find an article about it. As argued before, any school is potentially interesting and thus notable enough to be kept.--Dontaskme 18:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in Wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 18:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others and also, if we were to for some reason accept WP:SCHOOL as a guideline, it would still pass #1, "The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself", per Zagalejo's comment above. Schi 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Author of article) This article meets and exceeds the criteria for retention under WP:SCHOOL. We have near complete precedent for retention of high school articles. Rather than agreeing on this consensus, we will face the same cast of characters trying to delete this and other high school articles. Alansohn 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, non-notable, fails WP:SCHOOL Xdenizen 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain but suggest someone source the "notable alumni" section in the next few days or it will be removed as unverified.--Isotope23 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high schools have always been kept for over a year unless they violate WP:V, I still don't agree with them being kept, but oh well, live with it. Jaranda wat's sup 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The way to change that is to not voice a keep opinion when you disagree with it. JoshuaZ 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per having notable alumni. JoshuaZ 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school, with barely notable alums. First, WP:SCHOOL failed. However, even if it were the WP Policy: I think that notable alumni is being too strictly adhered to, notable does not mean that the person has the merest notability for WP, but to be really notable. Otherwise, each WP BIO article creates instant notability for each of that person's schools, which may please the school-keepers, but in the event that the BIO is deleted, the schools go too unless there's some other notable in the alumni list, and school-keepers would not let that happen. Carlossuarez46 23:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're not using WP:SCHOOLS -- the only attempt we have at generating broad Wikipedia consesnus on the issue -- then what standard are you using? It's not notable by what standard? Again, we have an appeal to a standard and a claim that the standard's explicit wording can't possibly be what it actually means. Alansohn 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there is for example WP:SCHOOLS3. Also, he might have person standard (few seem to mind when keepers use personal standards)JoshuaZ 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if we were to take WP:SCHOOLS3 seriously as a guideline -- even though it represents the consensus of one person, JoshuaZ, and has never been submitted to the Wikipedia masses for comment or approval -- this school clearly passes criteria 1 (independent coverage) and 3 (unique program), all of which are fully supported with reliable, verifiable, independent sources. I can't even figure out what criteria 5 even intends to mean: "The school has multiple alumni or staff members that, because of their activity in direct relation to the school, are notable enough to meet a biographical inclusion guideline such as WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC." What on earth does "because of their activity in direct relation to the school" mean, and who on earth WOULD be included by this criterion? Would Tony Siragusa -- who starred on the school's football team on his way to NFL -- pass this arbitrary test? Alansohn 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't assert that it didn't follow that proposed guideline (note that I expressed a keep opinion above)- as to the others you need to reread criteria 1 in that proposal which specifically rules out routine local coverage. As for it being in direct relation to the school- this seems to be being hashed out on the page. Furthermore, the proposal is not a "consensus of one person" but has a fair bit of support on the talk page right now. If you don't like the proposal you should go to the talk page and say so (as I invited people to do on the WP:SCHOOLS talk page). In any event, this is all irrelevant because again as I observed many poeple have personal standards (That said, I do agree that it would be helpful if he would give more explanation of what he was thinking) JoshuaZ 01:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree that individuals should provide greater justification, keep or delete, referring to specific relevant Wikipedia standards and guidelines. I find your dismissal of this article's ability to satisfy WP:SCHOOLS3 standard 1 on multiple, non-trivial coverage to be a significant demonstration of the non-viability of WP:SCHOOLS3 as an objective standard for determination of the viability of school articles. As the two articles cover respectively an anti-prejudice initiative exhibited at a local university and the details of the school's participation in a statewide inter-district initiative, it boggles my mind that these articles would be deemed "trivial" or "puff pieces" based on this proposed guideline. The "exclusion" of so-called "routine local coverage" -- which I would interpret to mean a sports result or a school play, but you seem to mean anything other than a multi-page in-depth article in a major national publication -- seems to be far too arbitrary to be a basis of judgment. If this is what criteria 1 in WP:SCHOOLS3 means, than it seems to be way too narrowly drawn to be useful or meaningful to weigh notability of schools. To put it succinctly, do the articles included in this article satisfy criterion 1, and if not, what would?Alansohn 07:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm, you bring up good points. I think we are going to need to flesh out in more detail what precisely criterion 1 includes and excludes. JoshuaZ 07:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as The Way says "virtually all schools, including middle schools and elementary schools, are going to have numerous articles about them specifically in their local papers". This relatively substantial article actually include content from more than one such source, so there is no need to merge it anywhere. Also per WMMartin - treating this as a war isn't helping wikipedia. Kappa 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think anyone is treating this as a war. I can see only two users who might be in that category, and one currently has an RfC over it and the other one almost got blocked for spamming all the inclusionist editors in alphabetical order to tip a DRV. I'm therefore amused not "treating this as a war" is a reason to keep. JoshuaZ 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you weren't treating this as a war, neither of us would need to be here. Kappa 07:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that means what precisely? For one, I didn't AfD this article. Are you saying that my arguing strongly for the removal of non-notable schools is so serious that you feel a need to speak up to counter me? Or are you saying that without my stubborness no school AfDs would be happening and I am the tipping point to make them keep happening? Either of those is flattering but I doubt that is what you meant so explaining might be helpful. As for the notion that I am treating this as a war, I think my record on school AfDs almost speaks for itself. I'm many of them I have been persuaded to change my opinion on those specific schools. Even as I argue for deletion I help clean up schools and add sources (see for example Brickey Elementary. Indeed, even in this discussion, I had a productive discussion with Alansohn above which has forced me to reevaluate certain issues. If I thought I was at war, do you think I would have endorsed a few minutes ago the opinions I endorsed on your RfC? Don't confuse arguing and discussing a matter with "war" JoshuaZ 08:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article on signficant topic. There's easily sufficient coverage to support a complete and verified article. --Rob 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Tiffany Rayne and Tony Siragusa are quite notable alumni. Englishrose 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the notable alumnis bios can mention what school they attended if its relevant, which it probably isn't. This is schoolcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because a) like most schools, it is a significant local institution, and b) it meets the proposed Schools criteria (which, however, do not have general acceptance). -- Visviva 16:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is obvious a notable high school erasure makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this school passes WP:SCHOOL and has notable alumni. T Rex | talk 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Far from meeting any deletion criteria. Quite the contrary actually, this article meets any and all relevent polices for inclusion. Silensor 22:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the numerous reasons above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:54, 14 November 2006 (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/David_Brearley_High_School&oldid=1137768388"