Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City DOE Region 1 (2nd nomination)

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 No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 04:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York City DOE Region 1[edit]

Since the first nomination, the school district announced that the organization of the NYC DOE regions will be phased out. In other words, these stubbish template articles (Yes, there is a series of them) are no longer relevant. As an alternative, templates and articles can be created using the NYC "Regional School District"s, which are the subdivisions of the NYC DOE in use today. WhisperToMe 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all They were used for many years, and frequently referred to. Notability is permanent--we do not remove historic geographic designations. DGG (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DGG, but will they stand as individual articles? The designations may have always existed, but why have one-liner articles about them? WhisperToMe 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; I don't agree those are geographic designations so much as administrative divisions of little current consequence. Given that they are one-liner as well, they end up being an outdated directory. — Coren ^(talk) 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It makes no sense to me to have ten one-sentence pages for ten non-existant bureaucratic city divisions. I seem to remember that if a stub cannot be expanded, then it's a bad article. In this case, could you even expand it if you included all ten? And do similar city sewer districts get their own page? I have trouble seeing the notability here. Whatever is here can be discussed on another page higher up in the administrative hierarchy. MarkBul 16:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the best place for this is a large article titled "history of the New York City Department of Education" - It does not exist yet, but someone could start it after the DOERegion pages are deleted. WhisperToMe 19:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for keeping them is the key information in the navigation boxes, which is where the individual schools are listed. This is the key organizational device. If the articles were removed, the information and the links would have to be reconstituted for all of them, and keeping this is a much simpler solution. DGG (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, that is not a proper rationale for keeping it. I can easily delete every single one of those navigational boxes. If I wanted to include this in individual school articles or in a "History of NYCDOE," I would. WhisperToMe 00:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Twenty Years 14:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. No objection if someone wants to create a new navigation scheme, but until one exists, the DOE region articles should be kept. EdJohnston 03:56, 29 September 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.