Deletion of Science Park High School (Newark, New Jersey)

Comment: Many editors in this debate seem to have allowed their indignation at the perceived hubris of these school administrators to overcome their reasoned, rational, natural |civility.  On behalf of all the Wikipedians who may not have time to return to this discussion and reconsider their |hasty remarks, I apologize to the school administrators and anyone else who may have been offended by the remarks of these editors. However, I must point out that all contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GDFL and are therefore no longer the property of the contributors, and that the nature of wiki is such that vandalism occurs, but over a statistically-significant period, the actions of |trolls are usually corrected by the |gnomes or vandalism patrollers.  Anyone who wishes to ensure the accuracy of any specific article is free to edit it at any time, and by creating a user account, can track contributions to that page to help combat vandalism.  Alternatively, if vandalism is frequent, |semi-protection or |protection of the page by a Wikipedia |administrator can be requested
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL||WP:BITE||WP:TROLL||WP:GNOME||WP:PROTECT||WP:RFP||WP:ADMIN)

Comment: High schools may or may not be notable, but this one appears to pass notability (and there is a precedent). A school is not a living being so  doesn't apply to the basic premise of having an article. The principal or other administrators would be advised to review the page on a regular basis to ensure nothing actionable has been written, but they are somewhat naive if they believe they have the right to control this page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:LIVING)

Comment: A lot of people here seem to be reacting to the circumstances of this nomination, specifically the suggestion that someone other than Wikipedia might have authority over what articles can be written. I understand where this sentiment comes from but there are cases where AFD does not have the final say—a salient example is . If an organization makes a request to have an article removed because they believe it to be defamatory, we ought to take that request seriously (for both legal and perceptual reasons); we need to either source any potentially defamatory material carefully or remove the material (perhaps reducing the article to a substub in the process). However, in this case it's hard to see how this article could be construed as defamatory at this point. I think we should '''keep it''' and tag it as unreferenced, or at the worst reduce it to a stub. &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:LIVING)

Comment: Well, while certainly referring to someone as a Yahoo or anything else is a question of |civility, the lack of professionalism in trying to hurry and type a reply is itself a problem. If you don't have the time to send a thoughtful, considered response, then the wise thing to do would be to refrain from responding.  It's basically an extension of the 10-second rule when you're angry.  If your alleged school administrator wanted to convince people, it would behoove them to do a better job of responding effectively.  Sure, anybody can make a typo, or forget to zip up their fly, accidents happen, pobody's nerfect, but there's still a responsibility to be professional.  As to your claims of a reason to delete this article, they are not convincing. The COI problem in this case is minimal.  If you can't make edits to it without bias, that is your problem, not the articles.  The same goes with Vandalism.  It happens all over Wikipedia, every day in thousands of articles.  So far, it hasn't destroyed the world yet, and I doubt it ever will.  But it will likely remain an ongoing problem, not just for this subject, though high schools with the typical immaturity of teenagers do attract a lot of problems, but for almost any of them.  If your school administration thinks there is a problem with its students though, perhaps it might be worthwhile to consider instructing the students as to the value of integrity, honesty, and not making vandal edits to Wikipedia.  This could be a great educational opportunity, teaching responsibility, not just complaining about a problem.  Notability is still in discussion, but High schools are generally accepted as being notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: I suggest making sure it is thoroughly sourced with |reliable sources like local newspapers.  Anything that is not or can't be sourced should be removed from the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: and cleanup including sourcing. A good chunk of the article is unencyclopedic "insider" detail that can be discarded, which removes most of the  challenges. The basic information about the school should be easily verified. As {{user|Sciencepark}} has released his edits under the GFDL, they are now "ours", not his/hers, so the administration should be aware of this. Not sure if they think this is like a MySpace group or what, but we don't need their permission to write about them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)

Comment: per Mister Manticore, but please everybody, be |civil!  Telling school administrators to "go to hell" is unworthy of the Wikipedia community
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)