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. NawlinWiki 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delone Catholic High School[edit]

Delone Catholic High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

As Schoolcruft. School does not meet the notability criteria. A unique fund-raising activity for a notable event does not qualify for notability by association, and community consensus at AfD has determined that state level inter-school competitions are not considered notable (See the Girls Sport Victoria, PSA, etc AfD's). The school's mission statement is just pure cruft. After you remove the fund raising, the marketing cruft, and the sports from the article, you have nothing left but an almost empty article which isn't even stub worthy and falls foul of WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yet another AfD that clearly fails WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Article provides ample sources to demonstrate notability with dozens more available. In the dozen or so school AfDs created over the past few days, success in state-level sports competitions have been a strong deciding factor in rejecting the persistent efforts to delete these articles. Nominator mentions other AfDs to demonstrate that there is some sort of precedent, but had provided no sources to support his baseless claim. The argument that once you ignore everything there's nothing left is a circular logic not even worth addressing. Alansohn 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You're making a keep nomination on the basis that the reasons for deletion disagree with an essay you created? And you're the one saying others are using circular logic! The article in question does not meet notability, as clearly outlined and dissected in the nominator's opening explanation. Additionally, you once again fail to assume good faith and accuse another user of having undertaking a concerted campaign of deleting school articles, and you do so with no basis or justification. As for the other AfD's in question, anyone who's anyone who keeps an eye on the Schools deletion sorting list will know these so there's simply no point linking to them. Next time Alan, challenge the reasons provided for deletion, instead of launching into another tirade against a user on the sole basis that the nomination simply disagrees with your narrow way of thinking. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Using WP:SCHOOLCRUFT as the primary excuse to delete an article, as is the case here, is a cardinal example of WP:CRUFTCRUFT. I will restate my reasons for retention: "Article provides ample sources to demonstrate notability with dozens more available. In the dozen or so school AfDs created over the past few days, success in state-level sports competitions have been a strong deciding factor in rejecting the persistent efforts to delete these articles." The article provides multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources for the school's achievements to demonstrate notability, in full compliance with WP:N. At no time have I accused you of a concerted anti-school campaign, and your insistence that I am making this accusation is once again a blatant failure to assume good faith and part of a continued pattern of WP:CIVIL violations. My comment that started "In the dozen or so school AfDs created over the past few days" was directed at the fact that there have been more than a dozen AfDs in the past few days (see Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive for details), among which are AfDs were participants weighed success in sports competition as a critical factor in establishing notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesleyan Christian Academy for an excellent example), contrary to your entirely unsupported assertion. If you believe that the specific AfDs you mentioned establish any sort of precedent, you will need to cite them (as I have), as I have no idea what you're referring to. Alansohn 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At this point, I would feel it appropriate to point out for others who may encounter this AfD that Alansohn is the subject of a active Request for Comment case for issues of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, and his continued comments here are prime example why five different users have seen fit to certify the dispute against him. His comments are another of ad hominem attacks which IMHO have become his trademark of late, and once again fail to address the well documented reasons for this AfD. The article is an example of Schoolcruft which infests wikipedia, and if the user in question had taken the time to read beyond the first full stop, they would have seen that there is a fully and clearly justified opinion in respect to policy issues associated with the article and the reasons for it being brought to AfD (Being that it does in no way meet WP:N and if all non-notable information was removed from the article it would become encyclopaedic and removed anyway). As is often the case, editors will often use various essays as a shorthand reason for an XfD nomination, which nowhere in WP policy, procedures, or guidelines is considered unacceptable or frowned upon. This has the benefit of saving reasonable and considered users valuable time when looking at the issues brought to hand, particularly if they know the essay. In the case of this AfD, an essay has been accompanied with a reasonable, detailed and considered explanation for those who wish to dig further into the deletion argument. Your use of this essay for the purpose of labelling an editor and their actions is an egregious breach of WP:AGF, a point made by WP Administrator Orderinchaos when you were issued a AGF3 Warning for these comments. You have also stated in your comments on Orderinchaos' talk page that he is my buddy. OIC and myself do go back quite a way, but both of us as demonstrated from our histories here act independently of friendships or relationships, and act simply on the issues at hand in the spirit and manner which WP intends, and not in a collusive manner which you have ceaselessly alleged without basis or merit, again an egregious breach of WP:AGF and an example of why users have seen fit to open an RFC regarding your actions. You have continued to extrapolate minor and meaningless points for your own benefit, and I will again repeat my previous advice - comment on the AfD and not your issues or viewpoints with users, essays, consensus, or other matters. Instead of the countless hours you spend commenting ad nausem regarding these issues, you'd be much better off devoting that time back to improving articles. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Important Note The above comments were restored after their improper removal from this discussion by User:Alansohn. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Important Note The above comments were restored for a second time after their improper removal from this discussion by User:Alansohn. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have tried to remove your blatant personal attack on three occasions only to have you reinsert them and add further attacks. Your choices to make a personal attacks are blatant violations of WP:CIVIL and will be addressed with appropriate sanctions if you refuse to remove all of your attacks. Alansohn 07:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly an interesting way of admitting you almost breached WP:3RR over, of all things, an AfD. Wholesale removal of editors' comments is unacceptable, what I see is a heated discussion, and someone who doesn't like being disagreed with. There is a reason the Wikipedia powers-that-be invented 3RR as a rule, and this kind of case seems to speak to it. Zivko85 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As you have admitted, there is no WP:3RR violation, nor would there be for removing personal attacks made in violation of WP:NPA. Alansohn 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system, a Wikipedia behavioural guideline which reads as follows: Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption, such as obstinately reverting an edit exactly three times a day, and then "innocently" maintaining that no rules are being violated.. I think this says all that needs to be said here regarding your actions. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You all seem to be forgetting that this is a deletion discussion for an article, not a discussion of any individual editor's behavior. Let's get back to the subject shall we? VanTucky 07:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In order for this school to pass WP:N, it needs independent sources which have been written about the subject. This does not appear to be the case - any references cited thus far, and any I can find, do not address this and lead the article towards WP:NOT#IINFO territory. My personal opinion is that many schools are notable, some highly so - I've written and assisted with the writing of articles about several. However, this one isn't one of them. Orderinchaos 04:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Notability. Sports news and trivial fundraising (how many thousands of institutions raised funds for Katrina?) does not equal "significant coverage". Any journalist who has worked at even the rural local level knows that sports sections and columns are functionally obligated to cover this material to fill their pages every day. Coverage of sports does not equal a reliable news organization making the independent choice to cover a school for its newsworthy attributes. Hence, no notability is proven by sports coverage. VanTucky 06:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a local paper decides to cover a school or event, then that is objectively notable. Papers exist to sell things, and if including school items sells newspapers because people want to read about them, then makes it a significant coverage. Surely a commercial newspaper isn't going to waste a page on something that doesn't sell things. I would suggest that Rupert Murdoch would be upset otherwise. Assize 13:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT#IINFO. I am broadly in support of VanTucky's and OIC's comments here. Zivko85 07:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete School that is not notable, and I agree with VanTuckey's point above. The attempt to establish notability through the sports record and fundraising activities is ridiculous. Eusebeus 09:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the perfect example to question the "ridiculous" claim (see User:Eusebeus/School Notability) that "A school is notable only if it has attained some distinction for something other than its normal operation as a school", specifically excluding accomplishments such as notable alumni, sports achievements, and awards, despite the extremely broad consensus (as shown here, among many others) that these are precisely the characteristics that prove a school's notability. For every other category of article, notability is established precisely by the distinction that comes through their normal operation and function; politicians are notable for passing laws, athletes for scoring goals and hitting home runs, roads for being covered with concrete or asphalt, bridges for spanning rivers, doctors for curing diseases. An athlete does not have to cure cancer and a doctor doesn't have to be covered in asphalt to be considered notable. 99.9% of Wikipedia operates under the principle that it is precisely those accomplishments that occur in their normal operations that establish notability. This high school has been recognized not for its operation as a school, but for its accomplishments that distinguish itself from other schools. Even disregarding the disconnect that rules applied as a matter of course to other entities don't apply to schools, this article makes a specific claim of notability that goes beyond "its normal operation as a school". I'm no fan of Hanson, and other schools have had fundraisers, but this particular fundraiser received national attention from the CBS Early Show, MTV News and Rolling Stone, a distinction which goes far above and beyond other fundraisers, none of which are part of a school's normal operation, and all of which for this school is backed up by multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources. The circumlocutions in the essay are a major step forward from "no school is notable, regardless of the number or quality of sources", as previously advocated. But what we are left with is that schools are not notable either because their accomplishments are related in any way to their function as schools or even if their claim of notability is unrelated to their primary educational role. Is any school notable? Or is that a "ridiculous" question? Alansohn 12:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High Schools in general are recognised as being sufficiently notable as they have a greater input/affect within the community, where as articles on a high school sporting event(s), its buildings, and staff isnt that's what schoolcruft deals with. Since the school did attract media attention only reinforces its notability beyond the local community. Gnangarra 09:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This school meets established standards for claims of notability and references... --W.marsh 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A well referenced article. High schools should be inherently notable, and even without this, this is well referenced. Why would "sports news" and "fund raising" be non-notable? If its notable enough to be recognized by independent media, its notable for Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep just over the bar. One notable alumnus, a few championships.Both of these are accepted factors in notability. The article is sourced. Personal comments in afds can & should be ignored in the decision. DGG 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep High schools have generally been found in AFDs to be notable. WP:SCFT is nominated for deletion just an essay, and thus not a convincing reason to delete a high school article. Has several reliable and independent sources. Edison 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An essay is never a reason to delete *anything*. That's why almost everyone here has been citing specific policies/guidelines. Orderinchaos 10:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Edison, DGG and W.marsh.--JForget 01:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are tens of thousands of Catholic schools worldwide. Playing Hanson through the loud speakers doesn't make this one special. Cedars 04:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How does 10,000 schools suddenly make this school less notable? There were 11,000 competitors at the Athens Olympics and each is notable under WP:BIO. By the same argument, all Olympians shouldn't be notable. Assize 12:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per W.marsh. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability clearly stated. Why is it so important for some wikipedians to remove school articles? If you are not interested in them, don't read them... EagleFan 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't some attack on school articles in general (and BTW, your little quip about just not reading bad articles is the most infantile argument I have ever read in an AFD. We shouldn't delete NN articles, we should just ignore them? What a crock) nor is this an I don't like it deletion. The school does not meet the notability guidelines, plain and simple. As I stated above, coverage of sports wins is something that newspapers, especially local/regional ones, are basically forced to cover to fill their sports section everyday. It's worthless in terms of notability, bc it isn't an independent choice to cover the school because of it's notable and newsworthy status. And Katrine funding? please. hundreds of thousands of completely non-notable schools and organizations raised funds for this and other national disasters. it's not unique or notable. Neither of these two kinds of coverage, which comprise all of the schools news coverage referenced, meet the definition of "significant coverage". VanTucky 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feeback. :) EagleFan 20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep. I like the rediculous school articles generally, but even my tiny catholic HS was more notable than this one. I'll not be sad if the consensus is to delete. --Rocksanddirt 21:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A cute fundraiser and some success in sports does not a notable school make. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability comes from multiple reliable sources per WP:N and this article has plenty of them together with notable achievements. TerriersFan 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per TerriersFan's arguments and can we please avoid ad hominem attacks even when irritated. Thank you. Noroton 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Almost every high school in my state (Massachusetts) has won some sports championship and has put on a fundraiser, but merely citing them does not make this high school notable. As for WP:SCHOOL, I will put this article through the gauntlet: 1. "The school has been the focus of multiple non-trivial published works", mentioned, but not the focus; 2. "The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction", it's seems to have instruction similar to every Catholic school; 3. "The school has gained national recognition by virtue of its architecture or history", nope, nothing on such mentioned. Tdmg 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to dozens of articles and extensive mentions in Rolling Stone and MTV News, the fundraiser was covered by a segment on The Early Show that focused entirely on the school and the fundraiser (Click here for a CBS News article on the event). You may not think its notable, but CBS News decided that this was a story that they wanted to air nationally. People magazine also decided to do a story exclusively on the school and its fundraiser, describing it as a "clever twist" (Click here for their article). I'm sure that there are other schools that have won sports championships, but this article makes a specific claim of notability for winning three consecutive state championships, each of which is supported by an article from a major newspaper. You or I don't decide to put these things in newspapers, magazines or on television. Each media outlet decided on its own that the school and its achievements were sufficiently notable to share with their audience. I will put this article through the gauntlet: 1. "The school has been the focus of multiple non-trivial published works", a resounding YES as the focus of each of these achievements. Notability has been established. Alansohn 01:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that a school has won a competition doesn't make it notable. The fact it is the subject of non-trivial coverage in an independent newspaper does make it notable. Assize 13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the only thing vaguely notable about the school is some fundraiser, Redirect this to Delone Catholic High School Katrina Fundraiser and then see if it passes an AfD. The school qua school is unnotable, per above. It is important not to conflate verifiability with notability. True, multiple, non-trivial sources usually provide clear indications of notability. But this is a good instance where a strong argument can be made that media coverage does not raise the subject above the trivial. So they held a fundraiser. So it received national attention. So what. One of thousands. Are we going to have an article on every fundraiser across the world that manages some national attention? We are not unthinking automatons and no good faith reading of the notability guideline obliges any editor to concede that the sources adduced lead inevitably to an assertion of notability. I am in complete disagreement with what I read as the spirit of Alan's argument. This is a community-driven, consensus-seeking debate. Alan's view above seems to suggest that every time different media organisations make an editorial decision to give something coverage, Wikipedia editors no longer enjoy the license to exercise their own judgment. That's not on. Eusebeus 13:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Could not have said it any better myself, particually on the issues of notability in the context of media coverage. Those comments go to the core of cruft issues with wikipedia, and the existance alone of news reporting no matter the quality or the context is often used as a justification for a keep vote. This is something I have always disagreed with, and make a point of looking at every article posted where possible to see if it really establishes notability, or is just the usual non-trivial coverage. A great example of these issues can be found in this AfD for a marketing company targeting those in same sex relationships. The closing admin made the following specific point in relation to the sources that were being used to justify the article being kept, "While there has been extensive discussion about the company and the article the questions on WP:N, WP:CORP have still to be addressed along with the concerns of WP:COI and WP:SOAP. I note that the previous AfD from August 2006 had similar concerns at that time the AfD was closed as no consensus. Also the article has under gone a lot of editing since it was list here, with a number of sources added including some that are WP:RS these sources are used to support only incidental information they offer nothing to the establishment of Notability." Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • These are all interesting interpretations of the rather clear standards established by Wikipedia:Notability, the bedrock standard by which notability is established for any article on Wikipedia. WP:N states that: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", a standard that is clearly met by this article. WP:N definitions for "Significant coverage" (sources that address the subject directly in detail), "Reliable" (sources with editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability), "Sources," (secondary sources provide the most objective evidence of notability) and "Independent of the subject" (excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject) are all satisfied in their entirety by this article. The utterly irrelevant AfD cited addresses issues of WP:CORP and concerns with WP:COI and WP:SOAP that even this AfDs nominator didn't bother to cite. The userfied essay User:Eusebeus/School Notability, in a section aptly named "Schools & Inherent Lack of Notability" makes the claim that one should make the argument to delete a school article as "Delete, nn school", rather than "Delete, nn school", carefully choosing to ignore the Wikipedia:Notability guideline, one of the most basic and fundamental concepts in Wikipedia. While this essay contains a lot of text, all it basically says is "Delete as nn school since schools are inherently unnotable" (see here). As each and every one of the standards of Wikipedia:Notability have been met, the clear presumption is that the school and this article are notable. The strong burden of proof is on those who believe that this school is non-notable to explain why this presumption should be ignored. Alansohn 15:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So was the topic covered the school? Or the school's fundraiser? As I say, create the article Delone Catholic High School Katrina Fundraiser and then see if it passes an AfD. Your reading of the notability guideline is tendentious as is your characterisation of my views about School Notability. Disagree, but don't distort. Eusebeus 00:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your presumption that notability has been met is not that same as a patent meeting of Notability requirements. You seem to simply ignore the fact that what we are saying is obviously trivial mentions of playing MMM-Bop for a Katrina fundraiser and sports coverage do not in any way qualify as "significant coverage" which "address the subject directly in detail". The coverage is not about the educational institution in any of the articles sourced. Do they profile the school's academic status, history or extracurricular activities in the MTV bit? No, they just connect it to their main point of coverage, which is pop music. Patently trivial, as the fact that this is Delone Catholic High School (and no other school) plays no role in the connection to a notable band. Does the coverage about the sports wins comprehensively profile the school? No, it is more about the season and the teams than the actual educational institutions. If you doubt that any of this coverage is trivial, just think about what would happen if each was all the school had...speedy deletion, that's what. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You may rightfully believe that the fundraiser itself was trivial. However, the articles about the program clearly meet the "significant coverage" qualifier and all address the school directly and in detail per each an every clause of the Wikipedia:Notability standard. The term "trivial" refers to the nature of the mention within an article, not subjective perception of the importance of the event. Consensus is clear here that Wikipedia:Notability is satisfied. Alansohn 16:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not talking about the events at all, I'm talking about the coverage. I think the fundraiser itself is a far from trivial in the real world, but the coverage of it most definitely was. Significant coverage means the subject is covered "in detail". A school is, simply put, a place where students learn from teachers. If the coverage cited only speaks of a sports event or a fundraiser, it is not covering in detail what that subject is and how it operates. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Alansohn - Are you incapable of seeing the logic and meaning in the arguments of others? I would have expected a greater level of intellegance from yourself, but my hopes once again seem dashed. Go back, re-read the AfD I refered to in it's entirety, the comments of the closing admin, then come back to this AfD (Because it seems that everyone else managed to understand the connection between this AfD and the one I mentioned). The lesson in the quotation of the closing administator's remarks was that sources are often used that are only incidential or trivial references to an articles subject (which is the point VanTucky and many others have been at pains to point out), and make no offering of information that leads to the establishment of Notability. The closing remarks of the admin regarding other policies were in relation to that specific AfD and I haven't seen anyone try and use them here as apart of the deletion reference. Playing sport does not make one school more notable than another, because every school plays sport. If that sporting competition was a long standing competition of a national level organised by a crediable organisation then you might be able to bend for the article (And that's only if that organisation and competition have articles which meet relevant criteria). Many schools organise fundraising activities on a daily basis, and just because one school has one which is for a notable event which uses a notable band as part of the activity does not notability grant by association. Just because it has one known notable alumnis does not grant it notability by association either. A logical exception to this would be if for example the school ran a significantly regonised regional or national academy for a specific sport or academic pursuit where there had been significant notable alumni from it. The userfied essay you cited in your recent comments has not been mentioned by anyone here other than yourself, nor was it used in the nominators statement for deletion, nor has it been cited by anyone else. Your attempt to introduce that into the discussion is irrilivent and of no bearing to this AfD. If you want to start essay wars, then I suggest you look at your own essay and the total lack of anything useful to deal with perceived problems you claim exist. The fact is that regardless of what you think the relevant policies say in your view, consensus at AfD has generally disagreed with you. The sooner you learn to take a leaf from Willie Nelson, then the better off WP might be for it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP:NPA violations need to stop. An additional warning has been placed on your user talk page. Alansohn 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; this Afd is built on the premise that the essay WP:SCHOOLCRUFT is even a real problem. (that was predictable). The school appears to have been established in 1939[1][2] and a student is mentioned as graduating in 1941[3]. Spread over 60 odd years, Google News has 7,830 results, and Google Books has 20; plenty of room for expansion. John Vandenberg 06:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-referenced, notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 02:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SCHOOLCRUFT and WP:CRUFTCRUFT are not official policies and are red herrings in this debate. The subject of this article is the primary object of several non-trival references in independent secondary sources. It clearly meets WP:N as a result. The size or quality of the article are not grounds for deletion. The discussion about notablity is revolving around fame, which is not notability. WP:N states that notability is "distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"". It is an objective test, and if the fundraiser was a simple raffle which received national coverage, then that is notable because of the national coverage. Assize 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:N. Also, there is enough reliable sources coverage to write a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts about the school. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:37, 9 July 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.