Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Beatrice Jones 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 was redirect to Racine Unified School District. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Beatrice Jones Elementary School

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

Per outcome reaffirmed hundreds of times that elementary schools ain't notable, and should be deleted, merged, or redirected. Article is unsourced aside of the school website, and comes nowhere near assessing the type of notability we'd need for a school like these Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to best target per established consensus accurately described by Purplebackpack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That "general consensus" has not been established at the talk page of WP:ORG and does not appear in that guideline. We should follow the guideline unless it is changed. Sources have not been identified to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district, Racine Unified School District. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- there is no basis fort a separate article--there is equally no basis for not making a redirect, and none has been offered. There is basis for keeping the redirect: according to deletion policy, its the preferred alternative to deletion, and that policy is the basis for everything we do at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. I've no problem with a redirect, which I've indicated above. But your comments raise some questions in my mind.

Are you suggesting that each of the hundreds of thousands of schools that exists, which is verifiable, deserves a redirect? That every company that exists deserves a redirect? That every person who exists deserves a redirect? If we could create a bot that would create redirects for every school, every other organization, and every person in the white pages and yellow pages of the world -- that it would be a benefit to have those all in wikipedia, with redirects for those that don't have articles? I'm not as clear as you that this would be helpful.

Nor am I clear that the target articles always yield any information of interest, to a reader searching for the school.

Anyway -- my main point is that I'm supporting a redirect. But your suggestion that a redirect is always better than a deletion is not a completely clear conclusion for me. And the suggestion that it is required is at odds with practice, IMHO. I've seen all manner of articles close as delete, where the entity/person exists and we know a locale to redirect the article to. Practice does not seem to be, across wikipedia, that in applying our policies we always avoid deletion when we could redirect. As best I can tell. Respectfully.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate being asked for a further explanation. Yes, I am not just suggesting but arguing very clearly that every one of the hundreds of thousands of schools that exist are appropriate for a redirect, as are all community institutions. I'm one of the people here who has always been opposed to giving articles to relatively minor local content, partly to maintain some degree of consistency and maintainability, and meet the expectations of an encyclopedia. But a redirect to a mention in the article for the locality is another matter. The article or group of articles on a place should include all the schools in it, and they should each have a redirect. Even if the target article just indicates it's there, the sources and external links should lead to detailed local information. I wouldn't suggest it if we were PAPER, but being able to do things like this is one of the advantages of our medium.I agree we haven't always done this, certainly not by searching out ones to include, But there's a great deal Wikipedia has yet to cover. There's time and people ahead of us--there's no final edition, DGG ( talk ) 07:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Thanks. Are you also suggesting that every one of the hundreds of thousands of companies that exists deserves a redirect? That every person who exists deserves a redirect? If we could create a bot that would create redirects for every school, every other organization, and every person in the white pages and yellow pages of the world -- that it would be a benefit to have those all in wikipedia, with redirects for those that don't have articles? Do you see only benefit, or do you see cost in the addition of those millions of redirects -- and if so, what would those costs consist of? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2012 (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.