Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain View Academy (San Francisco)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain View Academy (San Francisco)[edit]

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

Unremarkable closed school. Only sources appear to be videos Nightfury 09:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find the type of coverage which shows that it would pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school in a major North American metro area it is all but certain to pass WP:NPOSSIBLE. Given that it shut down 40 years ago, online sources are going to be more difficult to come by, and I suspect that the nominator hasn't undertaken a search of paper newspapers from the time period in which the school existed or considered this possibility as the much misused RfC also suggested. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can show that coverage exists to pass WP:GNG as TonyBallioni said above. Störm (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Our guidelines and guidance on this require us to consider the possibility that they exist, and when that is probable, that is a good enough reason to keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - So in a reliable encyclopedia you just gamble and pray for sources? The Banner talk 11:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The latest school RfC made it clear that there was no consensus to change the practice of considering all high schools as if they were notable. This is not a statement about actual notability, either in the special meaning used in WP or the meaning used by everybody else in the world, but a statement about the necessary practice of avoiding the thousands of consequent school article debates, which experience in past years proved, will result in more fr less rnadom results depending on who shows up at AfD. the correlates it that we do not keep but merge elementary schoolarticles--there used to be several debates a day on these also, resulting in the random keeping of articles.

This is not a question of WP:V or reliability. The facts in the article are verified by thesources, which are sufficiently reliable for that purpose. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per DGG. --Doncram (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A verified secondary school. To go down the path of scrutinizing the tens of thousands of secondary schools in the world is a really bad path for WP to go down.--Oakshade (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2018 (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.