Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaffney 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 main article and remove Neck hard. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just another school article full of facts and figures, with no discernible content. Author User:DvDknight, who has been blocked previously for disruption, is spamming about the school. Also nominating Neck hard, a connected article. Expect a sock/meatpuppet flood. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Pages. The phrase "Neck Hard" is a perfect example of a thing made up in school one day, and the school page has no notable content. Banjo Fraser 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Sancho (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Neck hard as per WP:NOT and WP:NFT. Do not delete Gaffney High School because it is about an school, not a thing made up in school one day. I think most of the Gaffney High School article must be deleted, but this should not be sufficient argument for a whole deletion: in my opinion its Introduction and Mission are right... Some of the Facts may be included as prose / infobox; the result will be a stub that may be expanded later according Wikipedia policies. Rjgodoy 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neck hard per WP:NFT - I originally tagged this for speedy as no context; the author expanded it, but it's still anecdotal and unsourced. Neutral on Gaffney High School, as I'm not getting involved in the whole schools debate. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional Comment - These two articles should not have been nominated together as one vote. They may be related, but the issues are different. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep school; Delete Neck hard neologism. School article is organized rather poorly, but if one actually reads it, the article does make explicit claims of notability and has won multiple state sports championships. Article needs improvement, nor deletion. Alansohn 23:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep school; Delete Neck hard neologism. I've looked here through the first 60 results of a "Gaffney High School" search at the Spartanburg Herald Journal Web site and found several articles that provided information for the article. Clearly the school is notable between the Spartanburg paper's coverage and the Great Schools Web site. That's multiple, nontrivial, reliable coverage. I've added four paragraphs of information.Noroton 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (self-edit Noroton 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Query Do multiple articles from the same journal constitute multiple sources? --Butseriouslyfolks 02:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clearly the school is notable between the Spartanburg paper's coverage and the Great Schools Web site. 1 + 1 = 2 Noroton 02:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the Great Schools Web site? Am I missing something? --Butseriouslyfolks 04:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep school, as it does make a decent attempt at establish notability. Strong delete neck hard. I'd delete it myself but it doesn't fit any criteria.--Wizardman 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but rewrite) school, per my suggestions at peer review, Delete Neck hard, which is completely unknown to most people. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the School is notable enough. Needs a big cleanup but that is not for the AfD. TerriersFan 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notability is conveyed within the article and meets verifiability standards. RFerreira 08:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with TerriersFan. Hmwith 10:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article appears to be notable. A cleanup and expansion would be a better option than deletion. Camaron1 | Chris 15:02, 4 April 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.