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 by way of consensus, but please just merge this. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Union High School[edit]

Non-notable school, does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Seinfreak37 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Stub in development nominated for deletion just seconds after creation. EagleFan 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. The page was only created twenty mins before the AfD. Give it a chance for the creator and other editors to assert notability. ConDem^Talk 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Part Deux 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Article not given a chance to develop (renominate after some days/a week if the issue persists). AfD'd in 18 minutes. -- Black Falcon 00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't it bad practice for someone to simply create stub after stub after stub, none of which asserting any sort of notability? If the article warrants creation, it doesn't take long to assert the notability, even of a stub. -Seinfreak37 14:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but isn't it bad practice for someone to simply spend most of their time on wikipedia nominating articles for deletion? EagleFan 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of people that patrol newly created pages. It's not personal, but you've proven to be someone to watch due to the frequency of your adding of non-notable articles. -Seinfreak37 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (a) The article is inadequately reference/sourced, and (b) the article was created by someone who has been going along creating schools articles on a regular basis without then asserting or demonstrating notability. I don't have a problem with individual articles being created and then giving them time to grow, but this particular article is part of a whole group, many of which display the same pernicious pattern. It would be better for EagleFan to create articles on one school at a time, and work on them till they meet our standards, rather than simply impose his preference for inadequately documented schools articles on the project as a whole. As Wikipedia editors we all surely want high quality articles: we are not well-served by the bulk creation of low quality articles. WMMartin 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for further development, this looks like a series of mass nominations for Ohio schools, which would be disruptive. (jarbarf) 00:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, the nominator may not have intended to be disruptive, but this high number of deletion noms for pages so early in their development is disturbing. Also, my case that high schools are inherently notable ishere. Noroton 19:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richwood, Ohio. Then if more information becomes available later, it can be split back out to a separate article. --El on ka 22:22, 25 February 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.