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 to delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Christian School[edit]

Delaware Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I prodded this because it fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Prod tag was removed by an anon user so I'm bringing it to AfD. It's a non-notable high school and a fairly lackluster article. Soltak | Talk 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find anything on google that would verify notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability neither claimed nor evidenced. WMMartin 17:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have tidied it up and added references for verifiability to meet WP:V. There is no requirement for 'notability' (though, in fact, its educational standards are notable) only for the article to meet WP policies which it does. I'm all for being strict on vanity articles or those pages made as commercial adverts. However, when you have a high school that will be significant in its local community, and about which readers may come here to find out about, then reasonable articles should be kept. Yes, it needs expansion, but that is what stubs are all about - providing a framework for growth. TerriersFan 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you have modified the article to meet WP:V, though the point could still be argued. However, you have done nothing to either assert or prove notability. Your assertion that there is no notability requirement is fundamentally flawed: WP:N is a WP policy. It's general notability criteria is that a topic have been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." Two of your references are directly linked the school (its own website and a city website) and the other two fail WP:RS. Notability guidelines are not met. Soltak | Talk 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Any facts and figures for a school are bound to be linked with either the school or city - only they have them and the sources are perfectly good enough for non-controversial facts; ABC is not going to count how many kids are non-hispanic! WP:N states "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia" - it is not policy. Having said that, the educational achievements are plainly notable. TerriersFan 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing a very important fact: The words "policy" and "guideline" are used interchangeably. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. In addition, ABC wouldn't count the number of non-Hispanic students at a middle school because that information is not notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is neither a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information.; see WP:NOT. Soltak | Talk 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep High schools have sufficient notability. There are over 750 articles about high schools in Ohio, and there is no reason to single this one out for deletion. The school deletionists lost a very long time ago and are just going to have to live with the fact that high school articles are kept. Cloachland 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This one does seem particularly small and unremarkable... and maybe the deletionist cause is not yet lost. Brianyoumans 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This school is notable for its punishment policy, and that part is adequately sourced, though indirectly. Follow the link given, #4, and it will be clear what an extremely small number of US schools this applies to. A Notable bad example. DGG 05:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please notable due to some of the policies and can be expanded greater too yuckfoo 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above comments, ample reliable sources about an arguably notable subject. RFerreira 07:11, 19 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.