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.
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. This is a pretty obscure school. I'm pretty uneasy about nominating a Public High school for deletion, but I'm struggling to find any evidence of independent coverage. The only solid evidence I could find was a newspaper story in Montana. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's trivial run of the mill news articles about things like who won prom queen and the students returning to classes after COVID. From what I can tell there's nothing available that discusses the school directly and in-depth though. So it clearly fails the notability guidelines as a subject. Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing available, as with any other American high school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that lots of dependent coverage in local sources exist, but little independent coverage. 95% of the reliable sources I found were local. Others were only trivial. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC recently that determined the relevant notability guidelines for high schools is WP:NORG. Although it still sorta depends on if it's a public or private school though. Public schools are treated a little loser then private ones. Which are usually treated the same as any other type of company/organization. Something like a single primary source or just a name drop in a independent directory doesn't cut it for either though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redoryxx, There is a historical note at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: At one time, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG. The relevant policy explanation is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): 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. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. Note that GNG does not require regional or national sources, but a requirement of ORG is WP:AUD. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. I think I was able to find a source in Montana during my initial WP:BEFORE check, but now I am unable to find it. All I can find now is a one-paragraph story on Newspapers.com. @Grand'mere Eugene: Could you point to me to where it says that WP:GNG does not require national or regional sources. I can't believe I forgot about WP:AUD. If this means that one regional independent source satisfies WP:ORG, I will happily withdraw the nomination if someone can provide proof. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grand'mere Eugene and Adamant1 thank you both. This is what I was looking for but wasn't able to find it myself. There are guidelines for most everything, so I had a feeling it'd be somewhere. Appreciate it. Redoryxx (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a bit with sources that meet GNG. Scorpions13256, there are five bullet points under WP:GNG, and none of the bullet points mention regional or national sources. In contrast, WP:ORG does require WP:AUD, and private schools are specifically required to meet ORG in addition to GNG requirements. Public institutions may meet either set of requirements (either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline), and GNG does not specify the AUD requirement. But you may only withdraw this nomination if there are no delete !votes. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Grand'mere Eugene. That source in the Idaho Statesman does seem to indicate that WP:ORG is met. I did not come across it in my WP:BEFORE. Also, the wording in that policy claiming that private schools need to meet both WP:ORG and WP:GNG was confusing. Should I reword it to specifically say that both guidelines need to be met? Scorpions13256 (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scorpions13256, I agree the language is a bit confusing. In the sentence For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria, "for profit educational organizations" is equivalent to private schools, which must meet both GNG and ORG. But public schools do not operate at a profit, so a public school like American Falls is not required to meet ORG requirements. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), public institutions may meet either GNG or ORG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"for profit institutions" are not the same as private schools. Most private schools in the US are non-profit institutions. Any religious school is, and a large number of private non-religious schools are as well. So the thousands of Lutheran, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish and many other religious schools are all non-profit. "for profit" is not by any stretch of the imagination the same as private. The line being drawn is not between public and private, it is between for profit and non-fprofit. However I think this line makes a lot more sense at the tertiary level. There are very few secondary for-profit institutions in the US. The most common occuarance that is close to that is charter schools, which in some cases are operated by for-profit institutions. However they operate with a specific charter from the government, so the issue is very complex. I would note that this article was very, very pporly written. It made a reference to "an official from Moscow State University" which was clearly actually a reference to an official from the University of Idaho.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Johnpacklambert: I stand corrected on the npn-profit/private issue, thanks. On the reference to "an official from Moscow State University", that was what the source said, and on newspapers.com there are many more references to Moscow State University until about 1928, when news of the Russian Moscow State University became predominant, but "State University" was still used in reporting local sports scores, for example. What's interesting is that there was a struggle between the northern Idaho community of Haley and the Moscow interests who eventually won out. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment relects why we need editors who understand the topic. We need to write in a way that a modern reader understands the topic, not slavishly follow the wording in old sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and most of the sources are primary or passing mentions. Star7924 (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the purposes of Wikipedia newspaper sources are considered secondary, and this is where most of the sources come from. We have enough sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New sources have been added. MB (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2021 (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.