Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubidoux high school

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. Only been four days but the outcome is obvious. Wizardman 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubidoux high school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unreferenced, no other information online Sydney Know It Alltalk 05:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Unreferenced" is not a reason to delete an article; it's a reason to add references. And there is material available; search for "Rubidoux High School" + Riverside at Google Books or the Google News Archive. Zagalejo^^^ 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I think the fact that there were There were 403 fight expulsions with the majority being drug or gang related in the 2005-2006 school year makes it notable. The article is sourced. And most Highschools are notable by default -- Fosnez (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is just a PROPOSED guideline, meaning it has no power and can't be used as a reason to keep an article. TJ Spyke 09:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Wrong. It means that it's an argument by him that has no official ruling for or against. It's still a valid opinion to hold and a valid argument to make. -- Masterzora (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it has no effect and is like citing WP:ILIKEIT. TJ Spyke 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: Not at all. Citing it is like outsourcing the argument to someone who's already made it. The idea isn't that "it is a guideline so you should follow it" but "people tend to vote in this manner, so there's no reason this should be any different." It's far more valid than a "per nom" argument, at any rate, since AfD is not a vote. -- Masterzora (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yet another drive-by AfD, submitted within 8 minutes of the articles creation, in apparent violation of the nominators obligations under Wikipedia:deletion policy to perform the most fundamental due diligence to consider expanding, improving or merging the article. The school, its history and alumni, all supported by reliable and verifiable sources, satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well focused Google search turns up enough articles. For the record: most Highschools are notable by default is not listed as being policy yet. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of work done since nomination for AfD. Survives WP:SCL (although still in development so not policy as such) passes WP:V ok. Sting_au Talk 09:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article would certainly benefit from further expansion and referencing, but most high schools are notable and the current article seems to meet WP:N and WP:V. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per fosnez BarnStarbot (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fosnez and Camaron1. Ψν^Psi_nu 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm voting just to further underline the enormous consensus. It's referenced now. meets WP:N and is quite notable. Noroton (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Camaron and Noroton Noah¢s (Talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but maybe capitalize "High School." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as snow. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as Snow and advise the nominator as to correct AfD procedures; it looks like Sydney doesn't know it all. AfDing an article 8 minutes after creation when it already asserts notability is unacceptable. TerriersFan (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree that these speedy AfD s do no favours to anyone and should be strongly discouraged. Paste (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously. 8 minutes!! Give it a chance ... pleased to see most have Victuallers (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2008 (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.