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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garey High School

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable school. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RedSoxFan274, more helpful reading at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Adamant1, You seem to have confused the notability requirement of WP:CORPDEPTH with that required for WP:GNG. Only for-profit institutions are required to meet COREDEPTH. Here's the WP:GNG description of the notability requirement for significant coverage: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The articles cited on the history of the school are more than trivial or passing mentions, and most actually are the topic of the source material. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand'mere Eugene: You should note that before the sentence about a school being for profit or not WP:NSCHOOL says that "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both." You can probably interpret what constitutes "mainstream education" in a couple of ways, but I would define it as being the main educational institution of that type in a particular area. if you notice the article says "The school was situated in the south part of the district so senior high students could avoid having to to travel to Pomona High School" and, Personally, I don't consider a school in an outlining area of a school district, that was mainly built to benefit the driving time of seniors, a "main" high school for the district. So for me it would have a higher bar of notability then the main high school in the district would.
Otherwise, we would by default have articles on every random low enrollment preschool out there, just because they receive a little state funding, and I'm pretty sure that's not in the spirit of the guidelines. As plenty of "head start" type programs are not for profit but are also clearly not notable. Which is probably why the "mainstream" part of the guideline is before the "for profit" bit. People, including you, routinely vote keep based on WP:NSCHOOL's for profit clause as if it's the only thing the guideline says or like there isn't any leeway, nuance, or considering of particular context allowed. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely not what mainstream means... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is that not what it means when the dictionary definition you provided literally says "used by most people"? Is a high school in the outlining area of a school district that was built to supplement the main high school "used by most high schoolers" in the school district? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is no. BTW, according to Mainstreaming (education) "mainstreaming in education is the practice of placing students with special education services in a general education classroom during specific time periods based on their skills." Also, "mainstreaming" can mean sending a child (sometimes "disabled," but not always) from an under served area to the main school in a district. Which, while I'm pretty sure neither are what the guideline is talking about, is (along with your meaningless definition) why I said the term "mainstream" is up to interpretation. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSCHOOL says that "All universities, colleges, and schools...must either satisfy WP:ORG, the general notability guideline, or both", with the exception of for-profit schools/commercial organizations. This is a school. It isn't for profit and it's not commercial. It meets the GNG. Ergo, it is notable. I don't even understand the dispute about "mainstream": this is a public high school, which obviously counts as a school. NSCHOOL is crystal-clear: for all non-commercial schools, meeting the GNG is good enough. Perhaps that should be changed; perhaps it shouldn't. But unless and until it is, I really don't see how anything other than a keep !vote could be justified here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, putting aside the "mainstream" thing if NSCHOOL is so clear that a school just has to pass GNG period like your acting then why does it even mention WP:ORG in the first place or visa versa? I'd assume there's zero way anything would pass NORG without also passing GNG. It also clearly says "or both." In no way does "both" mean "meeting the GNG is always good enough on it's own." Your acting like there's zero instance where WP:ORG would apply except in the case of a for profit school and that's clearly not what the guideline says. 100% it can (and probably should) be clarified so there isn't the ambiguity, but in the meantime that doesn't mean it's clear cut and not open to interpretation or context in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That wording has always baffled me too: in my view, it ought to be clarified. But nonetheless, it does quite clearly say "either", which means that meeting the GNG is enough. The February 2017 RfC is also quite clear that the GNG is applicable. Feel free to stop by my talk page if you're interested in chatting further about these issues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, as the history section of the article indicates, the building of Garey High School was only one of 4 construction projects in the Pomona Unified School District during the early 1960s. I left out that the decision was due to enrollment increases of about 10%, annually, district wide. The "Old Pomona High School", centrally located, needed to be replaced, and the new Pomona High was constructed in the north part of town. The Board deliberately planned to locate the second needed high school in the south part of town. The remaining 2 projects were elementary and middle schools. The point: all four building projects, including the the new Pomona High and Garey High, were built to accommodate burgeoning enrollments, and Garey was never an "outlying" school. It was designed and built as a new school in response to enrollment needs. Garey's enrollment recently has been 1,700+, and Pomona High's enrollment is close to 1,100.
Second, "mainstream" education refers not to a school being the "main school for that area," but to the traditional curriculum (language arts, mathematics, sciences, social sciences, the arts, phys ed) as age appropriate for students who do not have special needs. Mainstreaming does not refer to moving a student from an underserved area to a "main school in a district"; rather it's moving special needs students into the regular curriculum as appropriate.
Third, WP:NORG requires for-profit schools to meet the higher notability bar because they are businesses, and we are more cautious to ensure they meet WP:NPOV. In spite of the "Business model" being applied increasingly to judgments about school quality, very few not-fo-profit schools have resources to engineer PR campaigns. Many for-profits at the secondary level have a vocational focus, such as beauty schools, truck-driving schools, and specialized dance or music schools, such as School of Rock (minus Jack Black, of course). You can see listed the very few WP articles on for-profit schools at Category:For-profit schools in the United States, Category:For-profit schools in North America, and Category:Education companies. Our standard before the February 2017 RfC was to include high schools, but not elementary or middle schools, which were almost always redirected to district articles. To the best of my knowledge, preschools have not even been part of the discussion, so no worries there. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On Newspapers.com, I found a source in the neighboring county [1]. I also found a story about an arson attack in the cafeteria in 1971 that appears to be an Associated Press article. People as far away as Sacramento and San Francisco read it. Here it is. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks, Scorpions13256, those look like good sources. The database filters at newspapers.com are frustrating, slow, and clunky, but I also found LA Times sources and added them, even though strictly speaking, only for-profit schools are required to meed WP:AUD. GNG requirements are definitely met. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that site is annoying. I was unaware that WP:AUD only applied to for-profit schools. Could you link the policy? Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSCHOOL lists the GNG as an alternative to WP:AUD/NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. WP:AUD isn't solely confined to NORG. Let alone only for profit schools. Especially since the RfC that determined high schools (even none profit ones) aren't inherently notable. Otherwise, every high school would de-facto be notable because every high school gets run of the mill local coverage. No where do the guidelines say that we should save every high school article just because of run of the mill special interest crap that gets coverage in local newspapers all the time like some kids going to prom night or which student won a track meet that week. The "notable" in "notability guideline" assumes that the facts/information that we are judging this on is actually notable and can't be applied to every other place out there. Otherwise, it's not a notable subject. Which just as much goes for WP:AUD. Maybe the family members of the kids who went to prom care about that their child was mentioned in the local paper, but so what? They aren't who we are writing articles for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD is solely confined to NORG: that's why it's on the NORG page. The community is quite firmly against applying AUD more broadly; see this and this. (I actually agree with much of what you say, but it just isn't reconcilable with the guidelines as written.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:AUD is solely confined to NORG: that's why it's on the NORG page." For the sake of this discussion I could really care less if AUD applies to topics not related to organizations. Since organizations is what this article and discussion are about. My main point was that nothing about AUD is just confining it to for profit organizations. So feel free to confine it "solely to NORG." What does the NORG article say it relates to? "whether an organization (commercial or otherwise)...is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article." So I think what I said is perfectly reconcilable with how the guidelines are written. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP editing community has had notability discussions about broadening the use of AUD and COREDEPTH at least 3 times: in 2015, 2018 and 2019. Sadly, your belief that your conclusions are perfectly reconcilable with how the guidelines are written is not aligned with the community consensus. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AUD is a part of NORG. It's not a separate policy. There's nothing in NORG or anywhere else that says it only applies to profit schools and not organizations (non-profit schools or otherwise) more broadly. Otherwise, you could throw out like 99% of what's in NORG just because it's part of a subsection of the larger guideline and "screw the rest of it." Which would just be ass-nine and it's not how guidelines work. Obviously everything in NORG applies to organizations. Schools or not.
As far as the RfCs you linked to go, the first one is about adding AUD to GNG. Which in no way is this discussion or anything I said related to GNG or anything none organization related. Same goes for the second and third ones. As Piotr Konieczny says in the third RfC "I think this consideration is relevant to more than just organizations." Last I checked schools are organizations, what's in NORG has to do with organizations, and more importantly this AfD is about an organization. I've been more then clear I'm talking about the application of AUD to organizations. In no way am I trying to broaden AUD to anything that's not an organization as the RfCs were attempting to do. Like I said in my post that your responding to "I could really care less if AUD applies to topics not related to organizations." I'm not sure what's not clear about that. Really, your just Strawmaning. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if the wording of WP:NSCHOOL says clearly that all schools "must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both", are you not attempting to impose WP:AUD on the GNG requirement? I made no strawman argument. I'm just suspecting you are attempting the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. And honestly, you don't have to like it, but the community judgment is that schools can meet GNG without meeting NORG, unless the school is for-profit. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:01, 17 June 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.
More