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 Speedy Keep as snowball close. The assumed well-intentioned nominator is obviously not aware of the overwhelming precedent. There has been sufficient discussion here and an avalanche of consecutive keeps to make it reasonable to conclude that this nomination has no chance to succeed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summit School (Queens, New York)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources about the school. Don't see how this could be notable. A list confirming a school on a New York department of education is not enough. That is like a New York listing of all the orphanages. But do orphanages ever get publicity? Generally no because nobody cares! People care more about schools than orphanages. It needs media coverage before editors can write about their programs. We need to know why a school should be included. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons in the first and second AfD both from less than three months ago. And what do we have against this particular high school anyway for this barrage of nominations? -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, speedy close, per the two AFD discussions from less than three months ago. High schools are generally notable, and this is at best a dispute over the adequacy of the article's current sourcing rather that a genuine challenge to notability. At worst, it's a waste of time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009 July 27 they suggested to wait for a month if nothing has changed. Well nothing has changed which is why I have nominated for deletion. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High schools and all the rest of the articles on Wikipedia need to prove they are notable first before editors can write about them. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the reasoning of C.Fred in that Schools get the benefit of the doubt that they are notable unless proven otherwise, which is the case here. ArcAngel (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTAL, which rejects claims that it will be important in the future as a reason to keep the article. We don't have to wait until the subject is notable. If it's not notable now, it should be deleted. Esthertaffet (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is ArcAngel's statement under WP:CRYSTAL? Because we "give the benefit of the doubt?" The school is deemed notable because it exists, not because it might become notable. tedder (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The school needs to be notable in order to have its own article. Right now, I haven’t seen any sources that say it is notable. Therefore this school should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It’s not simply the school exist then it should have its own article. It needs to establish notability too. Esthertaffet (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the "high schools are inherently notable" !guideline, as well as references that the school actually exists (it isn't a hoax). tedder (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: High schools are inherently notable, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes( "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability.") and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (essay) ("As an example, generally speaking, any high school is deemed to be sufficiently notable for an article, but lower-level schools are generally not. While not a hard-and-fast rule, this is the status quo for Wikipedia inclusion and is consistently maintained through discussions of various schools, school districts, and their creatability and keepability (or lack thereof). Thus "inherent notability" is basically codification of OSE."). Three AfDs? --Milowent (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me what makes this school notable? I haven't heard any reason. Esthertaffet (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable on Wikipedia because the consensus is that high schools are notable, provided the school exists. tedder (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have very few default rules around here, and this is a good and reasonable one. If we eliminated this one, we'd have enormous time-wasting debates over various schools. In the end, if a few notnotable schools end up in the project (and i'm not saying this one isn't notable), its probably well worth it. --Milowent (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs reliable sources, sources that provide information on the subject not if the school exists or not. If that was the case then every single orphanage should have its own article as it exist. I don't think it's fair that we should keep this school when all the other orphanages are not. Orphanages exist and are important in a community as it takes care of children. This school is simply a special school that isolates children from the mainstream. Why should we include this school when orphanages are not kept? Esthertaffet (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All high schools are notable. The information in the article is easily verified by this entry from the New York State Education Department. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (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.