Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masuk 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 speedy keep. High schools, per precedent and consensus, are inherently notable. Keeping this AfD open for any longer serves no purpose. Additionally, there is already a clear consensus to keep this individual article. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masuk High School

Unsourced, non-notable school article. Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All high schools are notable. I added two references from The New York Times. Nominators ought to search for references before nominating articles on the grounds of being unsourced. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Established consensus is that high school articles are sufficiently notable. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-keep — It has been established that high schools are inherently notable. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't happen to agree with the consensus that high schools are notable by definition, but until the tide shifts there's no reason to delete this one. If the mood changes, though, I'll be nominating the vast majority of high school entries, including my alma mater!--
otherlleft (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, like otherleft, I don't agree with this consensus but it is and has been the overwhelming consensus that high schools are notable. StarM 03:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable, meets notability per longstanding precedent. Wily D 14:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I reverted a non-administrative closure of this AFD. THe reason was that the closure rationale was not provided, and the recommended period of time for due process has not occurred. The majority of opinions expressed in this discussion are likely to be countered and so closing the discussion this early is likely to affect the outcome, contrary to the guidelines at
WP:NAC. I have provided the closers comment below: Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The result was keep. (

talk) 16:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong and speedy keep This is the second cut-and-dry NAC that the admin has reversed (the other was
talk) 03:25, 11 November 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.