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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Carman-Ainsworth High School

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

The article is a content fork of the school districts, Carman-Ainsworth Community Schools, by trying to included the history of all high schools in the district, with some highly questionable information. Google and Yahoo searches only turn up routine coverage. The single sourced reliable sources, Mlive/Flint Journal, only adds trivial information about alumni - basically the school only gets passing mention. Thus the article fails Notability's WP:GNG. I have been told that just because it exist that it is notable, but that is contrary to WP:ORGSIG. Spshu ( talk) 17:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos ( talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos ( talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Again source coverage is routine and/or passing coverage. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason. Spshu ( talk) 19:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Coverage is actually less than at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swartz Creek Area Fire Department, which still was deleted per the WP:ORGDEPTH arguments as the Mlive/Flint Journal (a single source for notability purpose) talks about the athletes and only mention that they are alumni in passing. NCES is a routine governmental statistic website. Michigan Football source is about Ainsworth High (now CA Middle School) which is not Carman High, the original name for the now, Carman Ainsworth and could be considered a personal website. -- Spshu ( talk) 19:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Snow keep - As the nominator stated, he has been informed that high schools have automatic notability, per Arxiloxos and also per WP:Gazetteer John from Idegon ( talk) 18:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This keep voter was informed that statement is completely false per Wikipedia:Schools. Per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features): "..are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable" does not mean automatic notability. As this "keep" vote must show notability now that it has been challenged. Spshu ( talk) 19:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:Gazetteer states: "And Geographical features must be notable on their own merits." Which does not grant any immunity from AfD or notability. Spshu ( talk) 19:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
"In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes" ( WP:WPSCH/AG#N) There is a citation from NCES on the article. The school exists. If you want to argue the guideline, individual articles are about the least effective way to do that. This will be kept, undoubtedly. What exactly were you quoting? And your quote from WP:Gazetteer is an out of context disclaimer on WP:INHERIT. Notability does not perish. An article about a predecessor school is certainly an establishing factor for notability of this school. John from Idegon ( talk) 21:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
NCES is not a publisher and since it is statistical information, it is routine coverage per your standard. Existence does not equal notability. You are arguing against WP:School. No, that is the full WP:Gazetteer section quoted (copied & pasted), please actually read what you are referencing. There is no predecessor school to Carman/Carman-Ainsworth and that would be inheriting notability, which is against WP:INHERIT. -- Spshu ( talk) 13:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Like with many topics such as population centers, the community wisely decided long ago that there's an inherent notability with high/secondary schools. Instead of editors having to vet and scrutinize the tens of thousand of such topics, time and resources of the volunteers are much better spent creating and improving articles and avoiding discouraging animosity between editors. -- Oakshade ( talk) 03:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
'Note. Again voter ignores the totality of the argument here. Since, you mention it, we are here directly due to another editor's animosity and adversarial stance in his inability to allow the school's article to be redirect (per WP:OUTCOMES) to the school district for it to be incubated there and not find or look to see that the history section of the article is mostly false. Also, being told that AfD is the only place to discuss and that I should know it. -- Spshu ( talk) 13:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
It's only you in the eight year existence of this article that doesn't' want to "allow" this article to exist, this despite every other editor (including two during editing that only you have been reverting) weighing in so far agreeing with long standing precedent on the inherent notability of high/secondary schools. -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
That is an OTHERSTUFF argument in claim that I am the only one objecting to the article. As every editor is not summoned to weigh in on the article nor force to weigh in on the creation of the article. Every editor cannot review every article at every moment and that is what you are suggesting. You are using the false argument of WP:ARTICLEAGE ("Consensus can change, and an article that was once accepted under Wikipedia's guidelines or just by defacto practice could be put up for deletion.") as Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The number of editors that have edit the article is also a non-issue per WP:INVOLVE. Also, I have seen as pointed out else where here with two articles in the same wikiproject totally different outcomes because closing editors go apparently on and incorrectly on votes based on whether or not outside due to INVOLVE. Second, inherent notability of high schools is false per WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." WP:NSCHOOL: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both." So making it clear that the precedents have been made incorrectly per the various Notability guideline.
Consensus has long and strongly held that all high/secondary schools are considered inherently notable are are kept as indicated in WP:OUTCOMES. Finding a sub-clause buried in sub-guideline that contradicts consensus (see WP:GAMETYPE) isn't going to change consensus. While you've reminded us consensus can change, you've demonstrated zero evidence it has in this case as you are the only person who wishes this to change. While it might be shocking to you that there are exceptions to the Wiki-lawyering guidelines, they do exist. -- Oakshade ( talk) 00:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
You hit it on the head of what I feel has happened. "Bad faith wikilawyering" in proclaiming high school instead of properly "school districts" as inheritable notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#School_districts and "Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy." since NOR applies to schools not automatic notability. Gee that is how I feel the consensus was made, since it does not match up to what is written. So now the previous consensus is being cherrypick and wikilawyered against me as being gaming the system. -- Spshu ( talk) 20:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The history section could do with a good pruning but apart from that the article fits squarely into the time honoured precedent as documented at OUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: WP:OUTCOMES is same as arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF. But if you want to apply it then that it also states: "Schools that don't meet the standard (notability) typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America)..." Thus a non-notable outcome is allowed for schools under WP:OUTCOMES. Additional note, editors have reject my changing it to a redirect so information could be pulled from this article & incubated at the school district article. Spshu ( talk) 13:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Spshu, the difference between OTHERSTUFF and OUTCOMES is that OUTCOMES documents a clear precedenr evidenced by hundreds, if nit thousands of near identical AfD closures. That's a very strong precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Kudpung, OTHERSTUFF also indicates "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article." "Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty;" "However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS)." Just stating OUTCOMES as a reason is clearly OTHERSTUFF.
Look at who you can notify about an AfD and it is bias against the nominator as he cannot solicit even people that he feels would be neutral, while notification of bias parties like the School project is automatically. In one AfD (since they would not accept a redirect to a full sourced "list of" article, that was forced through an AfD with absolutely flying colors - luckily some neutral parties did show up), the stand alone article passed AfD based on a single primary source (the organization's website) and vague claims of large membership.
Additional, I have point to another OUTCOME where as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES "The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG)." WP:ORG was supposedly applied and even a regional newspaper with lots of direct coverage (some of which wasn't routine, just not apparent how to integrate those news article into the WP article) and an AP article could not help ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swartz Creek Area Fire Department), there is even less here for the CA High School. That AfD is still an outcome for an ORG which applies to schools. Spshu ( talk) 14:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Spshu, I'm not quite sure I follow your comment above, but I repeat: OUTCOMES documents a clear precedenr evidenced by hundreds, if not thousands of near identical AfD closures. That's a very strong precedent. That precedent is proven by consistent AfD closures while OTHERSTUFF relates to individual AfD closures or existing 'other' articles and comparing fire departments to schools is comparing apples to oranges. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
←It isn't apples to oranges as they all fall under the Notability for Organizations as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES & WP:NSCHOOL to show that the precedents are incorrect. There for citing precedents that failed to follow Notability for Org & WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a false argument. Claim other precedents under ORG notability don't apply is a false argument.
per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts, school district have inherit notability not high school. As WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states: "Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. |'Redirect' as an alternative to deletion is anchored in policy." And I quoted this again, which you have clearly dismissed despite claiming this as the authority for keeping. Spshu ( talk) 13:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
That WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES sentence applies to elementary (primary) and middle schools. The part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES you conveniently left out is: "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."-- Oakshade ( talk) 00:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Which you fail to note states "most" is not all "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools.." Is is the small part to the other quoted material which as you recommend to see WP:GAMETYPE as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly states WP:ORG applies to "schools and other education institutions" not inherited notability that school district have. Is that not cherrypicking at its finest? Spshu ( talk) 20:31, 26 June 2015 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carman-Ainsworth_High_School&oldid=1078081465"