Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. A. Milam K-8 Center

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. I'll note the discussion seems to lean toward a need for sourcing. I don't see a consensus to delete here, but more rather, the discussion seems to lean toward a consensus to keep and source.. Navou ^banter 17:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Milam K-8 Center

non notable elementary school/k-8 center. Elementary schools and middle schools (what this would be considered) do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). This one is not sourced at all, and is highly pov. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this one has enough awards and the like as to be notable, but sourcing is necessary, and should be possible.DGG (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a directory (of elementary schools) Corpx 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reason that most elementary schools get merged or deleted is that there is nothing to say. Here, there is plenty that is encyclopaedic backed up by enough awards to establish notability. Sure it needs sourcing but we don't delete for lack of sources; we delete when it cannot be sourced which is not the case here. TerriersFan 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 02:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a lot to say in the article, as TerriersFan notes, and the several awards make the school look notable. The article lacks sourcing, but I believe it can get sources, so that should not be a reason for deletion. Noroton 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The POV problems I mostly dealt with by rewriting just now. That's not a reason for deletion.Noroton 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article makes claims of notability, as described above. Sources and other additional material should be added to expand the breadth and scope of the article. Alansohn 07:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple awards and honors easily satisfy our notability requirements. Burntsauce 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having material for the article is not a reason to keep. Lacks notability and sources. Vegaswikian 04:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per Terriers and Burntsauce. Seems to have some awards that assert notability. The unsourced traditions sections should probably just be removed though. JoshuaZ 01:48, 11 August 2007 (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.