Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Christian High School (Lubbock, Texas)

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. BD2412 T 06:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Christian High School (Lubbock, Texas)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails

WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't been able to find any sources, but I am sure the state championships may indicate that they exist.
talk) 18:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
- Existing is not enough any more. In fact, since a RFC in 2017. The Banner talk 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I know. That's why I haven't !voted Keep.
  talk) 02:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep plenty of references to show this is a notable high school. [1], [2], [3] for starters. Like most high school sources, those are mostly about events and student achievements. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read the nominator's argument in full, a review of the reliable and verifiable sources about the school and its accomplishments demonstrates that the notability standard is satisfied, including those already in the article and those identified by Jclemens. Alansohn (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would highly suggest for the nominator to pause on adding any schools to AfD. Not on bad faith but there seems to be a disconnect here with how school articles have went through a history of GNG to which the discussion summarized to create
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – The Grid (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
- To my opinion statistics, sport-sources and alumni-sources are not the needed independent, reliable in-depth sources. The Banner talk 14:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  What policy or guideline advises us to ignore sources that are about the school's sports and alumni? Jacona (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:V, that asks for sources about the subject itself. The Banner talk 16:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  In the United States, the school's sports are not severable from the school. Sources about the school's sports are absolutely about the school. Jacona (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, it says nothing in-depth about the school itself. The Banner talk 19:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sourcing available to meet
WP:GNG, as with any other American secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep per
WP:BARE and meeting at least 7 out of 10 of my factors for school notability. FWIW, I teach at a private, nonsectarian school. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Sources meet requirements for notability under
WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Question For my edification, can anyone name their favorite two sources they felt contributed to this article's passing any
notability guideline? Jacona (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2022 (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.