Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Christian High School (2nd nomination)

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity Christian High School

Trinity Christian High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Look I am sorry but this School is not notable, plain and simple. Just because it is a school does not make it notable. A google search for this School, gets a low return. What is returned is a list of multiple different schools by this name. Yes, it is a school, unfortunately this does not make it notable. I informed people on both sides of the last AFD. Colleges have been deleted off of Wikipedia for lack of notability. Simply put this school does not need an article. So I say:

• Delete -MJHankel 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Due to the recent changes, I have changed my vote. I would like to see a little more concrete info on the school but this article has changed from a stub with a logo into a real article almost overnight. So I say that it is a little more worthwhile now. --MJHankel 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

note - last time this article was up for deletion people stated that it needed more time, it has been on here for a year now. It still is empty. --MJHankel 01:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE: This has to be one of the more staggering examples of bad faith I've seen on Wikipedia. The previous AfD ended in one of the more resounding keep votes I've seen for a school, yet here we are again with an attempt to get rid of it. The nominator is involved in a clear case of Vote stacki*ng, see [1] and [2].Alansohn 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

note - first off, I was simply informing them even five people is not stacking the vote, is it stacking the vote to inform people that their is an election? no I did not inform all of those that voted to keep for they already made themselves known by removing the template. (though I did inform most) Also during the last vote, as I stated before the overwhelming reason for keeping it was because it had not had a lot of time to grow, a year is plenty. Yes there are verifiable links but that does not make it notable. Also, the fact that I am doing this has [nothing to do with my leanings one way or the other. I attended a non-notable highschool, it is not listed on wikipedia it does have verifiable sources though. I am so sorry if it seems that I was attempting to stack the vote. I simply was informing people that it was up for vote.--MJHankel 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Well, that happens on both sides of the aisle, doesn't it? [3] Anyway, informing a few people known to be interested in a subject is not considered Canvassing. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply The statement by the nominator that "Hello I know that you patrol non-notable articles and I thought I would bring this article your attention this article is up for deletion again and you can vote on it at the following page:" was aimed at individuals with track records of deleting such schools. I didn't see any efforts aimed at identifying any individuals who might differ from your opinion or might endeavor to improve the article in question. As stated at WP:Canvassing, "disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable." Alansohn 03:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply How is that disruptive? Votestacking is sending out "mass" messages. WP:C specifically states that notifying a small handful of editors who share your tastes and philosophies on a topic is permissible as Friendly Notice. I've weighed in on several school AfD's, but the editor I mentioned above has never contacted me about one (which incidentally neither surprises nor distresses me). I'm sorry, I understand (and respect) that you are passionate about this subject matter, but we all still need to assume good faith and not attempt to chill those with different opinions by inaccurately accusing them of violating policy. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ok look- i knew that he or she (i am not sure which) knows a lot about the standards (i do not). I argued against that person when I came accross them many times. I did not tell them to vote against this article. they have voted for things to stay in some cases. I simply informed them because I do not know all the standards, besides they deal with Colleges not schools as a standard so they do not directly relate to this article. --MJHankel 03:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

also - i informed people on both sides of the argument, those for it help by adding to the article so it is better. I only am looking for this article to either be something of value or non-existent, either works for me. --MJHankel 03:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The nominator has made efforts to cover the damage, but it's clear that the initial attempts at votestacking, all of which used the greeting "Hello I know that you patrol non-notable articles", were aimed squarely at deletionists. Those notified after the canvassing issue was raised here received an abridged message that avoided the rather explicit push for deletion. That such votestacking occurs on both sides is a great reason to report both individuals, not to ignore it here. The attempts to trivialize this are quaint, but do nothing to address the core of the efforts to encourage individuals to vote in one direction. Alansohn 03:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the policy? Unless you can cite to "mass" contacts in this regard, your allegations continue to be off base and unfair. Until then, the only person who might be reportable here is you, for attempting to silence opposing views and/or alter the tallying of votes here by hurling false allegations at somebody you don't agree with. You even manage to criticize the editor for taking your advice and contacting people on the other side of the issue. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The nominator has covered his tracks as I see it, by contacting other individuals after the violations was pointed out. As I have pointed out, the nominator changed the "push" wording for those less likely to be deletionists. Your threats are entirely baseless and idle. We'd all be better off if you would explain to the nominator the potential damage he has done, rather than trying to use threats. The facts speak for themselves, and the claim that these are "false allegations" is a knowing effort to ignore the evidence provided. Alansohn 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of violating policy? I didn't threaten you, I merely pointed out that you are incorrect and that if anybody here is violating policy, it is you. I know you have reviewed MJHankel's contrib history, just like I have, and that you know there were only five talk page posts before you suggested that he contact people on the other side of the issue (which he then did). Five talk page posts is not votestacking per WP:Canvassing. The only "damage" MJHankel has done here is bring more people to the discussion who may disagree with your position. Nobody has done any actual damage here except you, as you have taken perfectly acceptable conduct from an established editor and couched it as something improper using only vague references to policy. Now poor MJHankel is left feeling compelled to explain his conduct when it was completely compliant with WP policy. Well, this has been fun but we're too far off topic, and I think any further comment would be redundant as well. But, as always, I'll offer you the last word. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

please Let me be as clear as I can. I was not attempting to do something wrong, I was not attempting to sway the vote, and I was not attempting to assert my opinion. I was informing (those that were few) about this Afd, so they would know (the others would follow), I was attempting to get results one way or another as fast as possible. I did later inform all for three reasons, a. I was intending to partially, earlier but had to get off the computer, b. I wanted results one way or another and I knew that informing both sides would allow the improvement of the article, c. I wanted to do exactly what you wanted me to do. I know very little policy, and that is the only reason I informed the other person of this they patrol article that lack notability and they know what to do (for or against). I am not mudslinging here. and I am sorry that I came accross as corrupt, I was only doing what I could. I am sorry that I have caused you distaste with me. I had no perrogitives in mind other than to get results. --MJHankel 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While the wording is hard for me to understand, I will take you at your word that the initial attempts were not aimed at swaying the vote. I sincerely hope that your efforts to contact others caught had been planned in advance and not after pointed out here. If you do attempt to contact others about future AfDs, I strongly encourage you to avoid any wording that can be interpreted as encouraging votes exclusively in one direction. Alansohn 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Also, previous nom is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Christian High School -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not every organization needs to have a page. Unless the school has a storied history or notable graduates, there is no need for an article. --Nymetsfan 01:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — google search for "Trinity Christian High School" shows no hits; identical results for Yahoo! and MSN searches. In addition, WP:ORG states: "...Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization..." - since there are no sources cited (and no search hits are received) it is safe to assume that the article is non-notable. anthonycfc ^[talk] 01:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - your search was for 'Trinity Christian High School (2nd nomination)' so the lack of hits is not surprising. TerriersFan 02:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all schools are notable. This precedent has been exhaustively proven and reproved too many times too keep arguing. All schools are notable (period). Jerry 02:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhh much more schools are being deleted in AFD than kept now that I see, precedent has changed, as for me, No Vote as I was vote stacked here. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Automatic notability of schools is not, as far as I am aware, policy or even an official guideline. It's just an argument that keeps getting trotted out, but it has never been formally agreed upon. Thus, I'd say it's an invalid argument. JulesH 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - In addition to the overwhelming result of the previous AfD in favor of retention of this article, and the patently inappropriate votestacking going, on, there are ample sources demonstrating notability, several of which have been added to the article. If you're going to use a Google search as a justification to delete, try doing it without the words "(2nd nomination}" in the title. Searching using "Trinity Christian High School" found 1,990 hits, a good bit more than zero. I'm sure I'd find the same using Yahoo and MSN. Furthermore, the school is often cited as simply "Trinity Christian" and that search finds tens of thousands of results. Alansohn 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notability has now been established by the secondary sources. TerriersFan 02:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Any currently open high school should be included in the Wikipedia. The article itself looks fine to me. Saying something isn't notable is merely an assertion without offering evidence. Is there any magic enrollment number that gets applied to every high school? 100, 150, 200, ... What then are objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion of a high school and why does a school with the Christian in its name have special scrutiny here? patsw 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • note - ok first of all that is nearly impossible. second private schools tend to be more suspect and non notable. I attended two, neither are here on Wikipedia. I am a Christian so that is a moot point. I simply started this discussion because the reasons to keep are a little week. After one year the article has grown ownly slightly. I have no problem with keeping this article if it had any real established notability. For goodness sake the attendence and faculty numbers are not even listed. This is easy stuff to find. My big problem is that the article itself has done nothing to save itself (it lacks the basic info for a school, it lacks much info at all). --MJHankel 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia's standard objective criteria for determining notability is showing that multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources have discussed the subject. I see no reason why a school (christian or otherwise) should be exempt from this rule. JulesH 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep as one of many inclusionists, i would like to note that no solid notability guidelines have been established for schools. i would argue that all schools are notable in this regard. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No but that isn't a reason for keeping. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

if the school is notable, then it should be kept (i see no other potential problems with the article). there is clearly much disagreement over what constitutes a school's being notable. in the absence of clear guidelines relating specifically to schools (as in many cases WP:ORG is very general and does not address the intricacies related to creating articles about schools), i find it justifiable to assert the school's notability based on its functioning existence, as, apparently, do a number of other editors. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment In absence of guidelines specific to schools, either WP:N or WP:ORG applies. What distinguishes a school from, say, a doctor's practice? Why should we treat one differently to the other? We certainly haven't agreed to do so, that is why there is no notability guideline that has consensus on schools. JulesH 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

reply what suggests that a school should apply to the same guidelines as a doctor's office? the two are highly different types of establishments. i would assert that the function of schools is more important and more adapted to being recorded in encyclopedic format than doctor's offices, although i don't think including doctor's offices would be a significant violation of notability guidelines either. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The school is still notable, and the article is well referenced. --Carioca 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is no consensus that schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the many school AfDs closed with 'no consensus'. However, the state championships earned by this school's sports program appears to make it sufficiently notable for inclusion. Two more things: 1) I moved Lil Miss Lubbock from the school awards section to Notable Alums and Students as this is a personal award, not the school's, and 2) As I have noted above, informing a few people known to be interested in a subject area of a pending AfD is considered perfectly acceptable "Friendly Notice" pursuant to WP:Canvassing. Just don't get carried away.  ;-P --Butseriouslyfolks 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - I fully agree that those things help to establish the notability of this school. The thing is much of what is now in this article that makes it good is new sense the start of this Afd. (which is good) I know all too well that an Afd can do much for the growth of an article. One problem I have with the new "notable" info is that the athletic section is only current events it needs far more info and history to be a real article section. --MJHankel 03:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This school doesn't have the top Google hit for "Trinity Christian High School", and as the nominator says, there are many schools by this name, so it is unjust for this school to exclusively have this page on Wikipedia. The company that owns and controls this school and seemingly many other schools must at the very least have its own page on Wikipedia before one of its schools of little-to-no significance has a page. Being "well-referenced" is not a reason for a page; I could easily make a well-referenced page about myself with tons more detail than this school's page. Many high schools win state championships, and what this school has won is a very exclusive competition for Christian private schools, not a state championship. --Ndickson 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply The article makes explicit claims of notability for the school, in its winning a few dozen state championships, once all of the relevant article are added. That there are other high schools with a similar name is a great reason for disambiguating the title, but a spectacularly poor one for deletion. The argument regarding the parent "company" is utterly meaningless; the school stands as notable on its own. Alansohn 03:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well-sourced and well-written. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To people voting delete, is this an arbitrary decision on your part such you can't articulate reasons other than non-notable to delete the article? Do you care to calibrate how competitive a school has be athletically to meet your criteria of notable? Is the expectation that school with enrollments of 200 can compete with schools of 2000 students? Please suggest some objective criteria which could be uniformly applied to any high school. patsw 04:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply nationwide notability is one of the govering factors of wikipedia. How well they may be able to compete has nothing to do with anything and is infact POV. Did you read this article? It has nearly a thousand students not 200. --MJHankel 04:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Where is the consensus that for an article to be written about a high school, it would have to achieve an appearance in national media? If that criterion were applied to the all high schools with articles in the Wikipedia, we shall be very busy indeed objectively determining if the nationwide requirement was satisifed, and deleting all lacking that. patsw 04:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I was only making light of the fact that notability is an important thing in the case of Wikipedia standards. --MJHankel 04:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article has multiple, independent, non-trivial references. --Selket ^Talk 04:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This school article is well sourced and is a lot better than some of the other school articles. A lot of school articles have only one sentence saying "This school is in X state." so this should be kept. -- Hdt83 | Talk 04:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above and notable school that's been fixed up properly. Bigman17 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep we decided this at the last afd... yet another example of "afd til i get the result i want".  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - that is not entirely true, I was not involved with the last Afd, I did not teven know about it till today. The consensus of the last one was that the article needed a little time to grow. A year has past and this article had not prodiced any fruit so the result was either to cut it down or prune it and let it grow. (farming analogy) An afd can be like ashot of penicili to jumpstart an article on life support. --MJHankel 05:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The quote primarily relied on to demonstrate N is "Trinity Christian School was selected by the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal as its Readers Choice Best of Lubbock Awards 2006 winner as Best Private School, based on ballots submitted by 2,500 of the paper's readers." This is not the best private school, but the best private school in and around Lubbock, Texas . which is not quite the same thing. matter entirely. similarly, "Texas Association of Private and Parochial School Class 4A defending state champion." is not the Texas state champion, but the Texas state champion among those private schools only, and of a particular subclass. As I do not know how many are included in that, I cannot tell just how N this is.

Yes,2 Notable college or professional athletes has sometimes been considered enough for a school to be N. and,

Yes, it is a lot better than some of the other school articles. There are zero out-of-state references. With all due respect to the Texans among us, I do not think this is enough,.

I do not think a nom after a year is excessive. Standards for N schools have changed over that period. (and nobody has asked me to come here) DGG 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply: The school's dozens of state championships is a rather explicit claim of notability. Can you point me to the requirement in WP:N that mandates that "out-of-state references" are required to demonstrate notability? I'd love to see this one. Alansohn 05:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in every sense of the word. The article describes why it is notable, lists notable alumni, and supplies multiple non-trivial third party sources to support the text. Yamaguchi先生 05:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - that is my point exactly, this article did not have even half the info it has now prior to this Afd. --MJHankel 05:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: So, is it notable now? Are you willing to withdraw your nomination? Alansohn 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Well sourced, notable school (per most), and it seems as if the editors have done their work. Kudos! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Please don't vandalize other pages to make it look like your school is notable. Someone added a reference to the Mason Crosby page in response to this AfD stating that he is an alumnus of this school, which likely conflicts with the statement in the next sentence of his page that already stated that he went to a different high school. Fabricating references does not make for a very solid argument. Please, for your own sake, refrain from such vandalism in the future if this reference is invalid as it appears. I will not change the page because I have no sources to verify either way, but I hope that you will stop this childish nonsense. --Ndickson 06:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Vandalism Confirmed: Upon checking the "secondary sources", the external article about Mason Crosby states that "He lived in Lubbock until age 5". That seems a bit young to be an alumnus of a high school. The school in Lubbock that the article does state that he attended is "Trinity Christian", not the high school of the same name. I will now remove the vandalism. This alone is grounds for deletion, since it calls into question the validity of the entire article. --Ndickson 06:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Please don't make wild accusations, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about. The claim that the reference is fabricated is completely false, as can be verified by reading the article provided in the reference in question. While he did not attend the high school, he did attend Trinity Christian. I would hope that you realize that your claim of vandalism and fabrication is inflammatory and utterly baseless. You seem to have no trouble participating in this AfD, despite your near complete lack of experience on Wikipedia. I would suggest that you learn to fix the errors, which would be a wonderful way to start learning just how Wikipedia works. Alansohn 06:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: The article is about the high school (hence "High School" in the title), not the company of the name "Trinity Christian Schools", and as such, it is invalid to have the reference there. Furthermore, it is false to say that he is "An alumnus of Trinity Christian High School", as was added to the Mason Crosby page a few hours ago. Adding information known to be false is against Wikipedia's terms of use. You and your friends might want to read them more thoroughly. They do eventually remove account privileges of repeat vandals. --Ndickson 07:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply: Unless you have reason to believe that this was anything other than a good faith misreading of the source provided, your charge of vandalism is as ignorant as it is arrogant. Given that your edit count has not yet reached the twenty mark, I would strongly suggest that you back off on making wild accusations and threats. Alansohn 07:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply: I've contributed anonymously for many years, and speaking truth is more important than speaking a lot. I don't resort to petty insults when making a case and I don't make threats. You are correct that none of us knows the exact intent of the person who added the false references other than that the person appears to be trying to save this school's page. The person did intentionally put information there unnecessarily and in haste, and that information was false, but they might not have known that it was false, so there is a chance that it's not "vandalism" by definition. You can keep discussing, but I'm done with this. --Ndickson 08:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete God... here we go with the school b.s. again. My high school doesn't have an article and it doesn't need one because nothing particularly notable goes on there that doesn't go on in every other high school on the planet. This school is in the same category. This needs to stop. --NMChico24 08:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNOTEXIST is not a valid reason to delete this article, While you may have a negative issue with your particular high school, you have not referenced any Wikipedia policy that would require deletion of this article, nor have you demonstrated that this particular school is not notable. Unfortunately, the "school b.s." we're dealing with ere is your baseless and arbitrary decision that "no schools are notable". This pattern of knee-jerk deletion votes without any regard to the article in question or to Wikipedia policy needs to stop. P.S. What high school did you attend? I'll be more than happy to create an article for it that I can assure you will demonstrate notability. Alansohn 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Any School is noteworthy IMO. Every school is responsible for hundreds, if not thousands of people's education. You never know if a student of any school will become famous an but the school on the map for others. My elementary school was blown up a few years ago. 5,000+ students passed through this school within 30+ years and it is already getting hard to find reliable information about it. Lets hope that none of the 10-50 year old students will ever get famous :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, independent, third party non-trivial sources cited. Notability established, though the article could be expanded. Terence 08:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, perfectly adequate school article. Ford MF 11:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all above, can't we move on from this one now people? Jcuk 13:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see nothing being said about this school that couldn't be said about thousands of schools. Almost all schools produce one or two notable alumni. Most schools have sports teams that from time to time win local tournaments. Local newspaper reader's polls don't seem particularly notable either to me. Most of the articles in the references section seem to fall under the category of "trivial" to me, as they're talking about one or the other of the above-mentioned unimportant things that apply to nearly all schools. JulesH 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: All of the information comes from reliable and verifiable sources and notability is more than demonstrated. To the exact opposite of your biased view, the fact that almost all schools win state tournaments, have notable alumni, receive awards and recognition and have this supported by reliable and verifiable sources is the definitive proof that almost all schools are notable. Alansohn
• Keep Its a school. Other than those who attended it, or those that live nearby, it will be unknown to most people. The school seems to be well established, and it is a relatively well-written article. Just expand it and it will be a good article - • The Giant Puffin • 13:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a school, not a vanity article. --BWD ^(talk) 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above: nn school. Eusebeus 15:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Above I gave some objective criteria for the inclusion of a high school: currently open. Of course, I am not limiting the inclusion of an article on a high school to its being currently open, but for a closed high school, other criteria would need to be worked out. For those voting to delete, please share your objective criteria for determining when high schools should have articles (and how many articles have you applied this objective criteria do.) The delete reasons given above seem highly subjective to me. patsw 16:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete . I see some sources here, but most of it is all local - so not only am I working with WP:N, now WP:LOCAL comes into play. The question then begs as to whether the school is notable outside of Lubbock, TX, and I would say "no" - and just because a student has become a member of the Cincinatti Reds baseball team doesn't make it notable (notability by extension doesn't exist), it just means that a kid got lucky. --Dennisthe2 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Vote changed
  • Reply: All of the information comes from reliable and verifiable sources. Can you point me to the non-local rule that requires sources to be some distance from the source provided? Alansohn 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed vote to abstain. There are still the notability questions that I think are paramount, but it has literally been hours since the closure of the last AfD of this article. Wait one month, give it a chance, and put it back here if it still qualifies, it is just too soon. --Dennisthe2 23:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Stricken, I misread the date. --Dennisthe2 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not what's at contention here, it's notability that is. What I see for assertions of notability are an award granted by a newspaper based in Lubbock Texas, quite a number of athletic achievements, and two students who have some claim to fame: a pro baseball player and a local beauty pageant winner. Maybe the sources of these are reliable and verifiable (which, by the way, I do not contend is what is at issue), but I still question the notability of the school. Not saying that it's not good (really, it is), but I'm not entirely convinced that this meets Wikipedia's notability standard. --Dennisthe2 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. If this was not a bad faith nomination, then it was severely misguided. Numerous reliable third party sources are provided to support this article, plus various awards and alumni demonstrate notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. Silensor 18:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Silensor, please assume good faith. At the time of the current nomination for deletion, the article did not include references or note its awards and alumni. (View that revision.) - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment at every AfD about a school, someone pops up to say "All schools are notable". This is patently untrue. My local village primary school has less than 30 students and two teachers, and does nothing that the other thousands of primary schools everywhere don't do. And that's why it doesn't have an article. And that's not just a size thing - large secondary schools must have notability, or else they should simply be merged into the article about their locality. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Nope. Sorry. All high schools are notable. It says so right here: User:Noroton/opinions Noroton 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - well, hey, you're absolutely right. It does say so right there. Oh, darn. I guess your opinion pretty much just overrides WP:N, and I'm just gonna have to change my vote. --Dennisthe2 22:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the following reasons:

A) For the most part, the article in its current version meets the Wikipedia:Attribution policy by refraining from original research and using secondary resources. The only unsourced statement is that school opened in '79 but noone graduated until '91.

B) From the Wikipedia:Notability guideline: "Notable is defined as 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice', but is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." . The school attracted the notice of various newspapers when it won state athletic championships, and the article now references these news stories. The national level of fame or importance the school earned by winning these awards does not grant or remove notability as because notability "is not measured by editors’ subjective judgment."

C) The Wikipedia:Places of local interest essay states that if a place is not notable to stand on its own, it should merge into its city article (Lubbock, Texas in this case). The resulting merge would cause an imbalance of information on Trinity Christian High compared to other schools in the education section.

Those reasons being said, the article was indeed unreferenced and stub-length at the time the deletion notice was posted (view that revision), and would have qualified for merge or deletion. Schools should be held to the same notability requirements as other places unless a guideline or essay for schools is formed to state otherwise. (If such a guideline or essay does exist, please let me know.) - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I saw "high school" in the title. That means it's notable in my book because all high schools are notable, just as, in Wikipedia, all towns are considered notable, and my book is right here User:Noroton/opinions. That said, I'm not opposed to redirecting some stubbly little high school articles to their school district or town pages, but that's not a deletion matter and can be discussed and disputed on the school's or town's talk page. Noroton 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep High schools are inherently notable, delete one, delete all. -- Librarianofages 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Both respondants above, please go to WP:WAX and scroll down a touch to the part where it says "Notability is inherited". Not a guideline, but a very valid point here. --Dennisthe2 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Dennisthe2, I don't understand the relevance of what you pointed out to what I said. And I hope you're not confusing "inherited" with "inherent" ("involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit"), both Librarianofages and I believe that all high schools are inherently notable. I make my case here: User:Noroton/opinions.
  • Surely, per WP:ALLORNOTHING, this cannot be the case. Many high school (secondary schools in the UK) are obviously notable, but many can easily be dealt with via a section in the entry for their locality. In the UK there are nearly 5,000 secondary schools - it is not credible that all can be notable. We would end up with a collection of stubs saying "School A is a secondary school in town B. It was founded in year C and has D pupils." EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Like this one, for example. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is isn't a case of "What about X" (WP:WAX), but what are the objective criteria for including or excluding a school. Explain (here or elsewhere), what your criteria are. It's simply not helpful to write: some, but not all without suggesting some objective criteria that can be applied to the current case, the next case, and the next case. And, yes, I think that all 5,000 secondary schools in the UK could and ought to have a well-written Wikipedia article. patsw 22:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to write a userspace essay on this soon (and I'll inform you on your talk page), but I would say that some reasons for notability would be (a) excellent performance, abhove and beyond what would be expected (b) alternatively, very poor performance involving the threat of closure, etc (c) some notoriety not related to education, which produces secondary sources (d) A long and easily notable history. (There are probably more). I don't think you can possibly create well-written WP articles on all high/secondary schools, without them merely being clones of each other. On a personal note, my daughter's school isn't notable in the slightest. I'd love to write an article on it, but it'd just end up like the one I linked above. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• To explain my inclusion of WP:WAX, the appropriate link for inherited notability doesn't exist - and I can't seem to create a wikipediaspace link for the redirect. =( I just needed a reference - note the instruction to scroll down. --Dennisthe2 23:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep "google test" is not an adequate rational. — MichaelLinnear 21:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it's not, but where's the notability? --Dennisthe2 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In the seven sources, and besides there is a very strong precedent for keeping this article. — MichaelLinnear 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Sources 1 & 2 are local directories, 3 isn't online so can't be accessed, 4-7 are local news stories about the school's sports teams, and 8 & 9 are about alumni, not the school. I'm fairly neutral on this one, but it's not the greatest collection of secondary sources IMHO. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        • If at first you don't succeed, try and try again. — MichaelLinnear 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
          • You do have a good point here without really trying though. Consider first that a keep on a previous AFD doesn't always set a precedent to keep in the future. It often does, but things can change. On the other hand, this closed in the past 24 hours. The general rule is to not re-nominate something for one month - and unless somebody's travelled through time, it certainly hasn't been a month since the closure of the last AfD. I'm changing my vote. --Dennisthe2 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Ok I do not know if you notice this but the last AFD closed 1 year ago yesterday NOT 24 hours ago. see for your self look at the year. Just wanted to point that out. --MJHankel 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
              • ...and I'm retracting, for the same reason I have voided like ten checks now. Danged date. --Dennisthe2 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All schools are notable. This is Wikipedia and not a regular encyclaopedia and we should accommodate as much as possible. Xanucia 23:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The part about schools is above. As for accomodating as much as possible, read this. --Dennisthe2 23:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article as currently stands shows notability. The nominator perhaps had a good reason to nominate when the nomination was made, but now that the article has been improved, it's not even a close question now, and this should be withdrawn in response to the changed circumstances. -- TedFrank 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 1)Article has several references.2)High schools have generally been found to be notable (more notable in my view than several other types of articles which claim their subjects are "inherently notable"). 3)Stare decisis Afd is not a "pitch til you win" game. 4)I object to nominators canvassing for deletionists votes. 5) With WP:SCHOOL tagged as "historical", there is no subject-specific ghuideline for schools, which means that each AFD becomes a free-for all with no basis for deciding other than gut feeling and compliance with [[WP:N}} and [[WP:ATT}}, which this appears to satisfy. Edison 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. At the time this AfD was proposed, the article was not in its current condition. However, since we now have a solid, well-referenced article, I see no reason to throw it out. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep please schools like this are important and the article has still made many improvements with reliable sources too yuckfoo 00:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep, looks fairly notable, considering the notable students especially. // Gargaj 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I still can't see notability. Local sports seems the main claim, but these seem thin. All papers cover local high school and college sports to some extent; every school in the city has probably been mentioned in the paper. The award about being the best private school was from a local paper and those sort of things are often advertising driven, not achievement driven. I consider mere mention of the school in newspapers a trivial source. --Pig^man_dialogue 00:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per any school article that is well referenced with a decent article. I see no reason why deleting this would improve the quality of the encyclopedia. THE KING 08:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, real high school. Clearly notable. bbx 12:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as the article is now sourced and there appears to be at least something slightly inappropriate about the initial nomination and the recruitment of support by the nominator. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment so why should we have to state whether we were "canvassed"? Does that make our votes less valid? I object to the big-brotherism of that whole process and it will doubtlessly lead to the opportunistic behavior of "canvassing" people whose views are likely opposed to yours and then have some requirement that they admit that they were canvassed and their votes be discounted. Can't we just have a discussion without having to worry what brought us to this page? ferevinsake....Carlossuarez46 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - I'm not sure you should state whether you were canvassed (it seems irrelevant), but IMO, asking people who you know are biased toward this is kind of gaming the system. In my opinion, it doesn't really look that good - and it's possible that the closing admin will consider that. Just sayin'. --Dennisthe2 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep High schools are important institutions. It is ridiculous that so much controversy is focused on them, when many classes of article of substantially lower importance are left alone. Hawkestone 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Whether an article is noteworthy does not make it valid to delete it. Leave it alone, someone may find the information useful, and thats what Wikipedia is all about. Dwellen 01:36 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is not true. I am not saying that this article is or is not notable. I am saying that the idea that notability does not matter is false. Check here Wikipedia:Notability#Dealing_with_non-notable_topics for the basic standard on notability. --MJHankel 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The school is notable and the horse is long dead, move along now. RFerreira 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Note to admin - I suggest that WP:SNOW now applies; the balance is now about 39-11 in favour of Keep (and yes I know its not a vote :-) ) and the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination by changing to 'Weak keep'. TerriersFan 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Satisfactory. — RJH (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." A high school is a "group of people" and therefore subject to this criterion. —Angr 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The school is not subject to A7 (and therefore not eligible for a speedy deletion), because they make an assertion of notability. Whether that assertion is up to standard...well, that's why we're here. --Dennisthe2 16:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition to which, a school is not a "group of people" and therefore does not fall into this category in the first place. -- Necrothesp 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • ...well, you could probably pull WP:CORP, but that's a stretch. --Dennisthe2 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course a school is a group of people, what else would it be? So schools are in fact subject to A7. And having read this "article", I can find no assertion of notability in it. —Angr 19:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The assertion is that they say it's notable and provide some references. There are plenty of admins who will tell you the same thing. --Dennisthe2 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • An additional note, a school - an educational institution - is more a facility to contain a group of people (the students), and its faculty. Like I said, it's a stretch, but WP:CORP would be closer to the truth for this purpose. The "group of people" would factor in if you were working with the student body. With no assertion whatsoever, A7 would work for sure (and I would have probably beat you to the punch =^_^= ), but with those links, it's going to be removed. --Dennisthe2 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Nothing they say asserts the school's notability, though. They only assert (and show with references) that the school exists. Thus the school is verifiable, but there's still no assertion of notability in the article itself. —Angr 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
            • This is true, but the quandary we're in is that A7 expects that there is positively no assertion whatsoever - including references that don't meet WP:N. If we have links, or something more than, say, a note from the author's mother saying it's notable, then the A7 falls out. At least, that's my experience. --Dennisthe2 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • A school is not a group of people. It is an institution in which people are educated. There is a big difference. That criterion is intended to cover things like random gangs or groups of friends, not institutions which have permanent buildings. These desperate attempts to extend A7 to anything you want it to cover are ridiculous. -- Necrothesp 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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.