Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trunnell Elementary School

Add links
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 redirect to Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky). MBisanz talk 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trunnell Elementary School[edit]

Trunnell Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A researched article, but simply cannot pass WP:N. The lead pretty much says it all: "one of 90 elementary schools in the Jefferson County Public Schools" Grsz11 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky), as is standard practice for schools not satisfying WP:N through third party sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a fixer upper contributor to the article trying to wikify the original content of the original contributor, there is some potential to the article, especially in comparison to some other school articles of the same category. The library has contacted me, and it sounds like a daunting job to find the microfilms and the exact citations for all the newspapers, so if the re-direct goes through then the library should not bother with the citations. I don't live in the area, but the conveyance with which the original author could speak of the school did sound notable but I cannot reach them anymore. If the article is given a re-direct let me know as the original article was created in category space and on several talk pages which is why the article was created in article space to clean up some other places and to let the original contributor new to wikipedia see it on wikipedia in article space. So if there is a re-direct I will plunk them on the relevant talk pages, so the article isn't in a funny place again causing concerns and consternation. The article space article was written to fix thingies happening. SriMesh | talk 05:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky). Best not to lose the history of this article and to merge what's worth keeping. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Did anyone notable attend this school? --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 19:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - already has sources that meet WP:ORG. It would be a travesty if such a well researched article was lost on some fine interpretation of a guideline. TerriersFan (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ORG, "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." All sources cited are either school databases or are local, so the sources do not indicate notability. cmadler (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it ain't exactly the Yomiuri Shimbun, but the Louisville Courier Journal IS "the 48th largest daily paper in the United States and the single largest in Kentucky" ... I don't know how that "attention by local media" clause of WP:ORG is typically interpreted, but I'd figure it means to exclude town/neighbourhood rags, not large metro newspapers. cab (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is filled to the brim with pro-Trunnell puffery: irrelevancies, multiple citations of directory listings and open wikis and the school's own website, gross misrepresentations (state grant money hardly qualifies as an "award"), and a good dose of (auto?)-hagiographical language in the Education section. However, AFD is not cleanup; the News articles section is pretty much a "textbook case" (hardy-har-har) of "multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources". The fact that it's one of 90 schools in the district actually works in this school's favour: it strengthens my confidence that the ten articles in the Louisville Courier Journal probably weren't all written by a parent who had a kid at the school, but instead by a reasonably independent and neutral journalist. cab (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to school district per ChildofMidnight. Punkmorten (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to school district. Per, WP:ORG, purely local sources are not sufficient to establish notability. cmadler (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Oppose Merge per TerriersFan and cab. The sources in the article are enough to establish notability. The argument of the mergers that this article fails WP:ORG is no longer valid per this source in the The Sacramento Bee, a newspaper that is many, many miles from Lousiville, Kentucky. This article is so well-referenced and sourced that it couldn't possibly be all merged into the school district. Keeping it is the better option. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge as nom. When I nominated this I certainly didn't mean to imply it should be flat out deleted, just not its own page. Grsz11 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry, but flat out deletion is what an AfD nomination requests. If you consider that the key content should be maintained but that merge is your preferred option then using the mergeto/mergefrom tags is the way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet how many AfDs end as a merge? It's just as viable an outcome as delete. The article, like any other that ends as merge, is not notable on it's own. It doesn't pass WP:N, so it should be nominated for deletion. If the consensus is that some of the information can be merged to another, then that's what the discussion is for. Grsz11 01:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just because others have used the wrong approach doesn't mean that you should also. Yes, a merge is a valid outcome for an AfD, but when your intention is to get the page merged then it is better practice, and saves other editors' time, if you use the merge procedure. However, this is not the case here since, as this discussion has shown, this school meets WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trunnell_Elementary_School&oldid=1138885824"