Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Hills Elementary 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 of the debate was keep, eventually. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Hills Elementary School

Delete - non-notable elementary school ClarkBHM 04:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also non-notable schools in the same school district:[reply]

Finally, while we're cleaning up, I might as well include these three (even though I recognize that they are not in the correct areas)

I vote delete for all of the above. ClarkBHM 04:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. You should also see the Schoolwatch archive for a few hundred precedents, or Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/New for the month of October 2005 alone. Silensor 04:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (all). Although all of the articles have little to no encyclopedic value, it is always important to keep in mind the school-related argument, which Silensor laid out very well. Many of the "articles" also have to be cleaned up considerably. — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 04:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot to mention that one of the articles is virtually empty (Dilworth Elementary School and two of them only have two-three sentences (Sedgwick Elementary School and Collins Elementary School). Even if the other articles receive "keep" votes, I question whether or not these three schools should be kept. ClarkBHM 04:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based of precedents. (I won't object if all elementary and middle schools were deleted) Faria is consistently ranked no.1 in CA, so it's notable in itw own right.--Jiang 05:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Please try to have some clue what the standards and precedents are before mass nominating articles that you don't like. Please also read the deletion policy, in which you will find that "non-notable" is not a criterion for deletion. Nor is having few sentences. Grace Note 06:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there champ. There is no reason to be uncivil. My nomination was made in good faith, and you have no reason to believe otherwise. This is the first Afd nomination that I've ever made for schools and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't bite the newcomer. Whether or not I like the articles is irrelavant. As Silensor indicated above with his reference to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments there are both arguments for and against keeping the schools.

I did take the time to look into the precedents of schools, relying mainly on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents and Wikipedia:Schools. ~~Please note that I did not nominate any of the high schools in the district as there does appear to be clear precedent that high schools are notable.~~ Also please note that Wikipedia:Schools states "It has 3 or more full and complete sentences of verifiable, factual information that is not published solely by the school itself..." Four of the schools nominated above, Blue Hills Elementary School, Dilworth Elementary School, Sedgwick Elementary School, and Collins Elementary School, don't even meet that basic criteria.

Actually, there are no high schools in the district, so I don't see how you can nominate them for deletion. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 00:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I didn't bother looking for high schools because of the precedent. I didn't realize that there weren't any high schools in the district. I've striken the statement.ClarkBHM 01:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding non-notability, I was relying on an answer to a question that I asked at the helpdesk regarding the "AfD Policy for churches". The response states "Of course, non-notable churches should be deleted. The same goes for non-notable people, buildings, etc. Problem is that not everyone agrees what is notable." Given this instruction, I was to believe that non-notable subjects should be deleted. Heck, its even part of the A7 vanity speedy criterion.

In the end, if there is consensus to keep them, that's fine. If there is consensus to delete them, that's fine too. If there's no consensus at all, that's also fine. Based on the information that I had available, I nominated them for deletion. Everyone is welcome to disagree, but I only ask that you remain civil. ClarkBHM 14:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Grace Note. This nomination seems misguided to me. Some of these articles are quite elaborate, some are just stubs. We should be striving to improve our coverage, not doing blanket noms. -- JJay 17:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per Silensor. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 00:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I am a parent with a child starting kindergarten this year in CUSD, and I am hungry for every bit of information on prospective schools. This year Murdock-Portal hosted information meetings for over a thousand parents, as did Faria A-Plus. I dare say that many of them, like I, have found and enjoyed these pages, and would like to keep them for parents who will come in the future. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.141.183.253 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 March 2006.
Keep all AFD stands for *Articles* for deletion. So templates shouldn't be icnluded. Also, using the tag on them, makes a mess. The nomination is therefore invalid. Anyways, verifiable real schools are individually notable. If there's an issue of verifiability, than that warrants individual attention per article, not a group nom (and I would consider such an arguement, if made properly). But the nom hasn't discussed verifiability, so I'll assume that wasn't their concern, and hence they have no relevant issue worthy of consideration. The nominator has misread Wikipedia:Schools which calls for merges of very short articles, not deletion (and it's not even a guideline, anyhow). --Rob 08:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The templates and category have been removed from this AFD, as they do not belong. So, now, one can read the article, without seeing multiple AFD messages in one article (which is patently absurd). --Rob 09:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I wouldn't object to deleting some of them, but some schools - Faria, Kennedy, Miller, among others are quite notable. So, per Jiang, I guess. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per the others. Hawkestone 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in accordance with precedence. ZEG 21:18, 9 April 2006 (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.