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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garrison High School[edit]

Garrison High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, not notable, merge or redirect to Garrison ISD. JJLiu112 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. JJLiu112 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Garrison Independent School District±. I find event listings, but nothing in depth about this school. Star Mississippi 19:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Garrison Independent School District per ATD. 174.212.228.83 (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added content and 3 news sources that I believe provide substantial coverage of the subject, meetin WP:GNG. Admittedly, sources are sparse, but s Since the school building is presently under construction, there will no doubt be news updates through 2023. If football scores counted toward notability, there would be about a bazillion more sources. Ah, well, such is life. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've since added content from another source two more sources, firming up the case the article meets GNG standards. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge some history of the article into Garrison Independent School District and Redirect. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG as with pretty much any other secondary school in the English-speaking western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we don't allow articles on every high school in America, because they may be verifiable, but are still not notable, per Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. A merge to the ISD makes more sense. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, it meets WP:GNG and is therefore notable by Wikipedia standards. In no way does this meet any of the criteria of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - With the sources Grandmere Eugene added to the article, the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. - Aoidh (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards a merge. I don't find the added sources particularly convincing. The most substantial one is this, which as far as I can tell is a self-published family history (perhaps I'm misreading). It might be good enough for verifiability, but doesn't carry far for GNG. The others are routine local news announcements, this source which doesn't seem to say anything of substance about the subject, and an unpublished master's thesis. Having a hard time seeing why we couldn't cover it in the district article, but not feeling strongly enough for a boldtext !vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To meet GNG, "routine local news" sources count toward notability. According to WP:NORG,

  The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose 'with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.

  Non-profit schools are not required to meet WP:AUD, which is part of NORG. Instead, they meet WP:GNG, where the requirement for significant coverage is

  Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

  — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Has been substantially improved since the nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources added. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:01, 14 December 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.