Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saxony Lutheran High School

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 per very longstanding consensus that high schools are almost always notable; and in this case, there are sources available that prove notability. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saxony Lutheran High School[edit]

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

A completely average high school that apparently does not meet the notability requirements for organizations. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. (I'll clean it up tomorrow, its too early in the morning here!). The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find sources showing notability, I'll withdraw the nomination. But "Keep because it's a high school" and "Keep because it's important to people" are not meaningful arguments. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is.... "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES may be useful for the nominator. danno_uk 02:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Please read the section of that page titled Citing this page in AfD.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh all you like, I wasn't advancing a viewpoint (you'll note that I made no vote), just pointing out what the prevailing wind in such debates is. danno_uk 19:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Sighing' is not a policy. Outcomes is indeed neither a policy nor a guideline but it simply documents various common outcomes. In this case , they are more than just 'common' as hundreds, perhaps the vast majority, of AfD closures of school articles will demonstrate. That sustains a precedent that countless RfC have been unable to chance. If you wopuld like that precedent changed, please do it through the appropriate channels and not through the backdoor of AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am going to cite the longstanding consensus and precedent at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Google news search (above) may only link to a regional newspaper, but that's enough. Ansh6 6 6 22:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - according to a fairly consistent and substantive consensus, high schools meet our notability requirements. That's a bit silly sometimes but consensus is what consensus is. Of course consensus can change, but I don't think it has. Nominating high school articles for deletion has long been a fairly pointless exercise as a result. I'd suggest trying to change that consensus before trying to hack away at it on a case-by-case basis. Stalwart111 03:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school, for reasons endlessly reiterated. We have clear consensus on this subject, no matter what the small minority of editors who disagree would like to believe or claim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am also going to cite the longstanding consensus-through-precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2013 (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.