Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridgeway Elementary School (Wisconsin)

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 Dodgeville School District. Redirect seems to be the best option here, and is cogently argued by a number of AfD participants. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgeway Elementary School (Wisconsin)

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

Per the general consensus that elementary schools are non-notable. There's a slim chance that the Silent Night controversy might be notable, though that's probably a one-off event. If the Silent Night controversy is notable, than the sections on it should be moved and the remainder of this article should be deleted or redirected Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG, there are reliable sources for this school and notable events having occurred here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per WP:1E for the Silent night controversy and GNG for the school. Merge the controversy to some other article. User:A412 (Talk * C) 00:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Silent Night controversy is interesting, and I doubt that it'll be adequately covered in a merge to locality our school authority, at least in a way that gives a complete story. WP:1E doesn't apply because the age be of the school also renders notability. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following how the age of the school makes it not a one-off. Is that operating on the assumption that since the school's old, something else notable must have happened there? If so, I don't think we can make that assumption Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's just that the school is old. It's therefore a historical part of its local area. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for historic buildings, but don't they have to be designated to be considered notable here? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking place not necessarily buildings. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't pointed to the policy where it says old = notable. My house is 100 years old. That doesn't make it notable Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

Emphasis added. You should probably familiarise yourself with WP:ORG if you're going to participate meaningfully in AfD's. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly familiar with WP:ORG, and as such, I do not believe that this school has had a significant effect on education, or that WP:ORG should be interpreted to say all schools are notable. Nor do I believe that that quote is supposed to be interpreted as something being old automatically means it is notable. I think it may be you who needs to familiarize yourself with prior consensus on this issue Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly familiar with WP:ORG but you ask me for something you should have known yourself. Have you found the policy/guideline where it says that primary schools are "inherently non-notable", yet? It's not WP:ORG is it? This conversation has run its course. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (with blanking) to Dodgeville School District where it is already mentioned, per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~to War on Christmas and include as a section there.--Thetrick (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)~~ per Kudpung, which I missed before. --Thetrick (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe listing it to a couple of other lists might generate some responses. I've picked out the above for their possible interest re: Silent Night controversy. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. There has been a custom of redirecting,in many AFDs, but I do not see any reference to that practice in the applicable guideline. The news item about a skit involving a Christmas carol is insufficient to justify a standalone article itself, and it is insufficient to make the school notable. It is not all that old of a school, either, and besides age per se does not confer notability. Edison (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as normally for elementary schools. The controversies stated are not sufficient to keep an full article. But nobody has presented any arguments at all against redirection, nor could they, for there is settled consensus about WP:Deletion policy's statement that deletion is the last resort, and that redirects are preferred to deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 27 January 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.