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The result was nomination withdrawn; keep. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kearny_High_School_(San_Diego,_California)[edit]

Kearny_High_School_(San_Diego,_California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Originally created as cruft by banned user Jason Gastrich[[1]], who admitted that he had created accounts and edited Wikipedia during his ban[[2]], regardless of the fact that he had been banned for, among other things, precisely that sort of behavior[[3]]. Recommend deletion and merging with San Diego Unified School District, which would provide for a more streamlined and efficient encyclopedia. High schools are not notable by mere existence, and are not notable because of a few real or alleged alumni (ref., WP:NOTINHERITED). There may need to be a Wiki-wide policy on this sort of thing, with articles being limited to specific high schools for academic achievements and national, recognized, and notable awards rather than because they are part-time employers of banned users. In other words, perhaps this should be among many such deletions and merges. - Nascentatheist 16:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I've said before, most mainstream high schools can be proven to satisfy WP:NOTE with enough effort. Without really trying, I've found a number of newspaper articles that are primarily about the school itself. The fact that an article was written by a banned user doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted; the topic of the article should be judged on its own mertits. By the way, at least some of the "alleged" alumni (Darnary Scott, Alan Trammell) really did attend the school there. Zagalejo 16:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for your comments. My issue is less than that the article was created by a banned user (which was noted as a matter of article history only) and more that the school itself is not notable. San Diego has a number of schools, and this one graduates lots of students every year, a fraction of which may or may not be notable depending on perspective. The issue about schools is what makes the school notable, and the school is not notable because it graduates the occasional student who becomes a sports figure of some note. I can see no problem with inherited notability if there are significant members of the alumni who contribute to society in significant, notable ways. I don't see that with Kearny or with most high schools that have articles. And what about the quality of the academics? What about state, regional, or national qualifications and awards? Yes, finding articles about schools in local papers is easy. That doesn't make the school notable. That's my argument. Thanks, again. - Nascentatheist 17:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 16:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable alumni are always a factor in the notability of high schools and plenty of sources from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan 16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, school has several notable alumni, passes WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep please this is a important school with many famous graduates too yuckfoo 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep regardless of who created the article or how the article was created, the article stands on its own as establishing notability. The reliable and verifiable sources provided satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 17:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the comments. I might need to reevaluate how I'm going about this (all in the interests of information literacy). As a final comment in the debate before I step back and allow it to continue, I will simply underscore my argument. Kearny has graduated thousands of students over the years. There are six listed as "notable" on the school's Wiki page. That strikes me as rather insignificant, as it would for any school, using the same criteria. As for mention in "independent sources," such as newspapers and web sites, we need to keep in mind that Kearny is a school located in a major metropolitan area. It's certain to get mentioned here and there in the local press. The key is why. Why does it get mentioned in the local press? Is it because of some great or notable things that are done by the school, its students, its faculty, or its administration? Or is it simply because some sports figure, actor, or writer happened to attend? Those things don't establish the school as notable or worthy of an encyclopedia entry. As we peruse the list of proposed deletions of schools, we see quite a few that include recommendations for merging with school district pages and what-not, mostly because notability has not been established. I'll argue that the "notability" guidelines are fairly loose and subject to interpretation. As a resident of the area with no ax to grind, I simply don't find Kearny (or most of the other schools listed) as notable under any reasonable standard or even a reasonable interpretation of WP:NOT. However, Wikipedia is about consensus and community, so I will leave that as the last word from me on the issue and gladly accept the consensus and outcome. Thanks to all for the participation in this process. - Nascentatheist 17:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• →Speedy Keep- the nominator has an excellent argument, but this particular school is notable because of its notable alumni and has some sources, so I believe it meets WP:V. If it were any other school, I would agree with you, but this particular school should be kept. --Boricuaeddie 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy KeepVerifiable, notable, famous alumni.. What more could you ask for? James Luftan ^contribs 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep, speedy close per WP:SNOWBALL, and somebody please tell the nominator that this is not the proper way to spank someone, ever. High schools are inherently notable regardless of the history of the author. Thanks Alansohn for underscoring the real issues here. Chris 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Actually, I think there's a sizeable section of the community that would argue that High School is not inherently notable. -- KTC 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you, KTC. Sorry to all if I'm going back on my earlier comment to leave my last comments as the last word, but apparently some of us aren't reading the actual arguments that I am presenting and ignoring WP:AGF as a matter of convenience. I hope that no one minds if I respond to an unjust accusation. Chris, the "real issue" is what I said it was, i.e., the establishment of notability for the school, like so many schools. I made a good argument and there was no attempt to refute it. The article will remain because it seems to meet the standards as determined by the consensus of the community. There was no attempt or desire to "spank someone." It's that sort of rush to judgment that causes problems with Wikipedia in the academic community, of which I am a part. These are problems that I thought I'd try to address. If it makes anyone feel better, by all means, let's get an admin to close the discussion, as I will now officially withdraw the nomination for deletion, and we can move on. I can accept that my desire to streamline the process and the system probably was misdirected as far as the method. It probably would have been best to open up a discussion about what constitutes notability and what does not, and set standards that aren't as broad as they are. Perhaps I will try to do that. In the meantime, remember WP:COOL. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn as likely an ill-advised method for a discussion of the underlying problem as it is perceived. Thank you all for your participation. - Nascentatheist 18:45, 12 August 2007 (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.