Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oak Avenue Intermediate School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. As indicated below, the addition of reliable sources during this discussion clearly establishes the notability of the school, and so the arguments for redirection are rendered null. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oak Avenue Intermediate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This school seems non-notable to me. It has a defender who won't even allow me to remove its bell schedule (which is unencyclopedic and a violation of WP:NOT#DIR), so I figure it would be best to bring it here instead of redirecting it to its district (which seems to be the usual treatment) and being reverted. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the district page. This page, as of now, is extremely poor. It's nothing but a "look at my über awesome school" page. I did take off the bell schedule to see if that would make a dent on the quality of the article, but it requires much, much more work. Undeath (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It'd be highly appreciated if you did not mock while engaging in debate. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per undeath. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect No refs to prove this is a notable middle schools. High schools have often been kept in AFDs on some notion of inherent notability, but fewer middle schools have survived AFD. Edison (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely Strong Keep. There are many middle school and even elementary school articles that exist that are stubs!!! However, this article although not the best, services as fairly decent. There is no real reason to deleted this article other than the suffering quality it has when the initiator and Undeath cut out more than half of it's content without any consensus. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a goodly amount of consensus at WP:SCHOOL on what should not be in school articles. Don't you find it telling that two editors have removed the bell schedule and cited the same guideline from WP:SCHOOL while doing it? And it will not sway the argument that there are other articles in worse shape; if you look, you will see many school articles up for deletion all the time. It seems to be a neverending battle; people create an article for their local school, and they don't see that their school is not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep School notability guidelines are still being developed. The article itself is still in the development stage and already exceeds that of hundreds of other school articles that have not been tagged for deletion. Two notable references have been added since this article was listed for deletion and others will be forth comming. Dbiel (Talk) 03:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it exceed the other school articles? In length? Most of the material is unencyclopedic, and I don't see where the notability is. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Current nobable references in the article:
- How does it exceed the other school articles? In length? Most of the material is unencyclopedic, and I don't see where the notability is. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Used as a example of Differentialed Staffing - ED042727 - Differentiated Staffing in Schools. A Review of Current Policies and Programs.
- Distinguished School Award - see article
- Just having a hard time understand what logic is used for selecting which articles are tagged for deletion and which ones are not; see the following:
- Some examples of stubs that have been around for at least 4 months:
- It should be noted that the above 8 articles were the result a my random selection of 10 articles taken from stub categories with my selection being based solely on the article title. This is an 80% hit ratio of non-notable entries created simply by visually scanning the article names in three separate stub categories. It makes it difficult to understand just what guidelines are actually being used in the selection of articles for deletion. Dbiel (Talk) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google News Archives shows quite a few articles that appear to be nontrivial about the school, going back to the late 1960s. If I have the time in the next several days, I'll try to add something from them, but if other editors can add something from multiple, independent, reliable sources that give more coverage than just trivial (brief) mentions of the school, then WP:N / WP:ORG notability requirements would be met. At this point, the closing administrator of this discussion doesn't have to look at any notability requirements but either of those. It would be helpful if footnotes could be provided for the paragraphs that don't have them. Noroton (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup. Let's face it, WP practice, as dictated by editors, is to make these articles. For every one that is deleted after contentious debate, ten more spring up. We should concentrate our efforts to standardizing and cleaning up the articles, rather than lengthy and pointless AfD's. I think they are a useful resource, since if one of the teachers wins the lottery or one of the students the spelling bee, or if, God forbid, something terrible happens there, users will have the info on the school at their fingertips.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many get deleted without a whimper via prod or redirect. I see no trend of increasing numbers of school articles, and I resent the idea that we have to accept articles on non-notable topics because some people like to create them. Blast Ulna (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as meeting WP:N by having the necessary substantial secondary sources. It has been the subject of a significant paper (ref 5) and further reporting here. Mind you, it does need a jolly large pair of scissors to be taken to it but that is an editorial matter. TerriersFan (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Noroton and TerriersFan. GoogleNews search shows it to be a long-standing school with significant, independent coverage which will pave the way to a NPOV, Verifiable article, which is the inclusion requirement. Clean-up is an editing issue not a deletion issue and editorial debates often can be resolved with a RFC. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup, as Wehwalt put it. I can agree this page needs a major overhaul from a fresh perspective, but it does not need to be deleted. If I can ever find the time to offer my help, I will. Thanks. Ryan (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2008 (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.