Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumberton High School (Texas)

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. WP:SUSTAINED has been cited as met. Editors note that some clean-up can be helpful. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberton High School (Texas)[edit]

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

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

Currently, fails to meet the requirements of meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG 1keyhole (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Available sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG, as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notability is determined not by the references in the article, which at the time of nomination were as noted, not so good, but by whether such references exist. There are, loads of references available in an easy internet search. First, just using Google, I found a bunch, and added a few to the article. I apologize for putting out some bare references, but due to situations beyond my control, I don't have much time right now. Secondly, I took a look at newspapers.com via the Wikipedia library and confirmed that historically, there are many, many more references over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time. A good bit of the coverage is from national sources, try searching for "Lumberton High School" + Burqa for one such instance. IMO, a robust WP:BEFORE would have yielded the conclusion that 1.) the article was poorly sourced, but sources clearly NEXIST and so the article should be improved, not torched. Jacona (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is WP:SUSTAINED and significant coverage in many reliable sources. The article meets WP:NSCHOOL. The article is poorly sourced and needs improvement, but the subject is notable and should be edited for content and utilize some of the sources available, rather than being deleted. The sources currently in the article are more than sufficient to demonstrate that the school meets NSCHOOL, but much polishing is needed. Jacona (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Jacona although with the caveat that those sources are news sources and thus primary. Still, the school received national news attention, and sustained coverage. It is a large school, open since the 1960s and is shown to have actively particiapted in and won state championships. That looks notable to me. I fixed some of the bare url refs but none of the 12newsnow.com urls work for me. Could you check those? If they work for US readers it may be a site that only allows regional access to its content, in which case I would say it is not suitable for verification purposes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2024 (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.