Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurel Mountain Elementary School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 of the debate was no consensus (16 keep, 18 delete, 2 merge, 1 redirect). Robert T | @ | C 01:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laurel Mountain Elementary School

I dont think a elementary school should be in wikipedia. Its non-notable --64.12.116.10 04:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should have articles on some elementary schools. Summerhill, for example. I think we should have an article about Froebel's original kindergarten, and very likely the other historical kindergartens mentioned in the kindergarten article. I don't know where the oldest operating Montessori school in the United States is but it should have an article. We need something more discriminating than "keep all schools" or "delete all elementary schools." We should keep the ones that are encyclopedic and delete the ones that are not. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please come contribute to ongoing conversation at WP:SCH. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Unencyclopedic; delete. ComCat 05:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per usual reasons per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 05:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons Vsion cited. --DavidConrad 05:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Round Rock Independent School District per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well, duh, it's a school. Hello? — JIP | Talk 10:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I could write an article on my elementary school and say "Elementary school X is located in Y." This would be a school, but do you really want such contextless entries? Please rate articles on their content and not the fact they are about a school. - Mgm|(talk) 12:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You're right, but I still stand by my keep vote. There is a reasonable amount of information in this article. It says where the school is located, how it is administered, and includes a performance record and a link to the school's website. — JIP | Talk 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • My point was that while this school may be worth keeping, you voted keep for the wrong reason. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You could write an article on your elementary school and be sure 20 people will spend a great deal of time getting it deleted.--Pypex 17:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I did. I don't see any people getting it deleted. — JIP | Talk 20:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the awards in their performance record, but I'd really like to see who awards them and how often for what achievements. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, informative article and per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and delete all articles that contain summaries of reasoning. Reason out your vote for this particular ARTICLE and not "all schools, ever, everywhere, at all times, no matter what." If your vote shows no indication that you've even read this article, how can you be expected to be taken seriously as a deliberator on it? In my case, I do not think we are in the business of replicating the Yellow Pages, and the information in this ARTICLE is virtually nil. If a mention of the school, with basic information, were put into a school district article, that would be fine, but it is a primary school with no information presented on it. Geogre 13:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • have you read the article because it has a lot of notable awards and distinguishments erasing this does not even make sense Yuckfoo 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If someone nominated a small country, it wouldn't be necessary to read the article to justify a keep vote. If one believes that schools should be kept, there is no difference. CalJW 23:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, one would need to read it, because we are not discussing possible articles but actual articles, here. I.e. the deliberation is not on the topic but on the actual performance. This is not Requests for Comment on content issues. An article that said, "Fiji is an island country" would be and should be deleted, even though the topic of Fiji should get full coverage. That's why "school watch" and all other voter busing projects must stop. Read the article (which got rapidly filled in by voters), and assess it per the deletion guidelines. Does the article advertise? Is it a copyvio? Is it a dictdef? Only then do you get to "Is the subject encyclopedic?" All the blather about schools addresses the strawman of "notability," but that isn't sufficient nor comprehensive in voting. (As for awards, it's a mug's game to base anything on awards. "World's Greatest Grandpa" doesn't get an article.) Geogre 01:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
        • So if "Fiji is an island country" would and should be deleted, an article which says "Coombe is a settlement in the county of Hampshire, UK." would also be deletable, perhaps even if it gave the grid reference? Kappa 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Why should anyone ever do a thing like that? If someone intends to assemble a decent paragraph, they should assemble it in user space or offline and create the article when there is something worthwhile there. If, on the other hand, someone does not really intend to do even ten minutes' work but merely wants to remind people that we need an article on that topic, they should make an article request. See the perfect stub. An article that says "Coombe is a settlement in the county of Hampshire, UK" is not a good stub. People shouldn't just type "Chapter One" at the top of a blank piece of paper and feel they've made a useful start at writing a novel. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Stubs like Coombe, Hampshire are incredibly useful, I wish we had at least that much for every settlement. They answer the question "where the heck is Coombe?" which is pretty much the most important thing about a place. Also they let me link there and categorize it, and provide a ready-made base for someone who knows about it to expand. Kappa 13:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Sounds like an appropriate entry for a gazetteer, not an encyclopedia. Is WIkipedia a gazetteer? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
                • It also sounds like a good entry for an encyclopedia which is providing the best service it can for its users. Kappa 15:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools, ever, everywhere, at all times, no matter what.--Nicodemus75 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "No matter what" is pretty broad. Would that include copyvios, unverifiable information, and hoax articles? Or would you care to qualify that a bit? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Deletion, properly understood, is an issue of the worthiness of the subject for inclusion in the encyclopedia, not on the content of the particular article. Thus, copyvios and unveriable info are reasons to revise the article, but not to devise. And if it's a hoax article, then its subject isn't a real school, is it? Kurt Weber 23:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • My comment was a direct quote from Geogre's rant above. Please try to keep up.--Nicodemus75 20:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Per N75. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep thousands and thousands of people will attend a gradeschool throughout its existance -- this alone makes it notable enough for inclusion. Besides, there are lots of other elementry school articles... We even have gradeschool categories for some states. --Quasipalm 15:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thousands and thousands of people have driven down the road outside my house throughout its existence, but that sure doesn't make it notable for inclusion. If we have other elementary school articles, they should be deleted too. — Haeleth Talk
      • Thousands and thousands of people will eat at a McDonald's. It vends routine food. Elementary schools impart routine knowledge. How is this one special? Durova 15:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, schools are not inherently tyhsjhfguuitruh. Sorry, I just passed out from boredom in having to try, in vain, once again to get an ordinary building filled with ordinary people deleted. Lord Bob 16:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If this losing of consciousness becomes a serious problem, might I suggest you stop trying to get a school deleted?--Nicodemus75 16:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this article please it is notable and interesting Yuckfoo 17:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Elementary schools have no inherent notability, and there is nothing in exclusively notable about this particular school.--Isotope23 17:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all schools below the high-school level. — Haeleth Talk 18:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Round Rock Independent School District. (Generic school < High School) => non-notable. — RJH 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
where does it say that less than a high school is not notable Yuckfoo 18:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment, right above in RJH's vote.--Isotope23 02:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete NN school stub Pete.Hurd 18:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if the HR passed, otherwise, Merge with the appropriate district per developing consensus at WP:SCH.Gateman1997 19:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • According to the link, the clerk of the house certified "that H.R. No. 999 was adopted by the House on May 9, 2003, by a non-record vote." Now, the question is, what's a non-record vote? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Geogre. encephalon 20:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete elementary schools are not inherently notable. Durova 21:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and important. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Even primary schools are more important than plenty of things that are kept with less controversy. CalJW 23:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Geogre. No reasons have been given that convince me that this particular article about this particular school is encyclopedic, and I do not share the opinion that "it is a school" constitutes such a reason. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Geogre. Edwardian 00:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please contribute to ongoing discussion at WP:SCH and help end this fractitious debate. Denni☯ 03:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as this appears to be an award-winning school of sorts. Yamaguchi先生 03:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. --Metropolitan90 05:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep  ALKIVAR™ 10:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep For my arguments, see User:Xoloz/Schools. Xoloz 19:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 22:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn elementary school --JAranda | watz sup 05:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete None of the awards are particularly noteworthy, e.g. the Greater Austin Quality Significant Merit Award is a 3/4 rating giving out to dozens and dozens of institutions. This isn't encyclopedic information. Gimmeahighfive 05:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there are few things that are less notable than this school...  Grue  22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as part of the fight [personal attack removed]. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge sufficiently verifiable to exist somewhere on wikipedia --redstucco 09:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic topic for the reasons given by deletion votes above. --Aquillion 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Laurel_Mountain_Elementary_School_3fe3.html"