Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentine Elementary School

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 delete.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valentine Elementary School

Valentine Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable private school with one teacher, gets 149 unique Ghits. Fails WP:SCHOOL. wikipediatrix 15:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Note to closing administrator: Contrary to the false information listed in the nomination, this is a public school with 687 students and dozens of teachers; it is NOT a "private school with one teacher". All votes below with the content "per nom" have demonstrated that they did not bother to actually read the article as part of the most fundamental obligation of an AfD. Alansohn 09:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly states in plain English: "There is only one teacher." I consider this user's hypertensive attacks here and on other AfDs to be an extremely bad-faith disruption to Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The nomination says it's a "private school": FALSE; In a discussion of class structure, the article said "There is only one teacher". Most read it and interpret it to mean "per class" the nominator decided that it meant "in the entire school". The phrase that has caused so much misinterpretation has been removed. Given these facts, the nomination does not have any factual basis to stand on, and should be withdrawn. Alansohn 15:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edgecution 18:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Like most schools, this one does not appear to the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial sources that show notability. Several points: (1) Yes, it received a California Distinguished Schools award for which it was recognized in the local paper. No, this recognition does not confer encyclopedic notability. The local paper article itself is trivial (<100 words), 5 other schools were recognized in the same article for receiving the same award, and the only material concerning Valentine Elementary is a 2-sentence quote from the principal. Because there is no non-trivial independent coverage of Valentine receiving this award, it doesn't show notability. (2) Now, it might be argued that all schools receiving the California Distinguished Schools award are somehow intrinsically notable, whether non-trivial sources exist or not. I would argue strongly against that. 377 California schools received it in 2006 alone, and a school can re-apply to receive it every four years. The award doesn't truly distinguish its recipients a la the Oscars; it's a pat on the head from the California state government to well-performing schools. No wonder there is no non-trivial independent coverage of Valentine receiving this "award." (3) Finally, yes, there is a government report on this school (filled with statistics, bromides, and mundane facts). Regardless of content, government reports don't show notability, as their publication has nothing to do with notability, but with accountability of government schools. Pan Dan 19:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - in the immortal words of Elaragirl, go and sit in the corner until your notability grades improve. Moreschi 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In the immortal words of Alansohn, are you justifying your deletion by appealing to Wikipedia standards and guidelines, or just wasting our time? Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Denni ^talk 22:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:SCHOOLS3 is a talking forum for deletionists to concoct the most arbitrary and meaningless standards to ensure that no school articles will exist in Wikipedia. WP:SCHOOLS3 has not been presented to the Wikipedia community for approval and has no validity on any basis as the source to justify deletion of an article. Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:SCHOOLS3 also has the participation of some school inclusionists. What you fail to note is that this project represents the work of those inclusionists and deletionists who seek some kind of common ground and an end to the divisiveness the schools issue has caused. The proposal is neither arbitrary nor meaningless: the criteria have been well thought out to ensure they meet the same standards as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB, and other standards that ensure that aricle subjects meet certain basic criteria. It keeps in motion a process that began over a year ago, and is most explicitly not designed to "ensure that no school articles will exist in Wikipedia". What it does seek to ensure is that those school articles meet certain standards, and there are plenty that do. I would also note that proposals become policy in part through use. I intend to continue to refer to this proposal in school-related AfDs, and I intend to keep pressing the Wikipedia community for a resolution to an issue that is being kept alive in part through bloody-minded stubbornness. Denni ^talk 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pan Dan. Also unsourced and fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Shimeru 22:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sources have been added to document the school's explicit claim of notability and to address your concern. Again, WP:SCHOOLS3 is a talking forum for deletionists to concoct the most arbitrary and meaningless standards to ensure that no school articles will exist in Wikipedia. WP:SCHOOLS3 has not been presented to the Wikipedia community for approval and has no validity on any basis as the source to justify deletion of an article. Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Yes, sources have been added to the article. No, none of them is non-trivial. Whatever attributes this school has, you can only argue that they are claims to notability if non-trivial independent sources have taken note, so to speak, of those attributes. But there are no such sources in this case. Pan Dan 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The school has been recognized twice with the California Distinguished School award, the highest award granted to schools' in the state by the California Department of Education, which satisfies "Significant awards or commendations", criterion 5 of WP:SCHOOL. As the school was founded in 1938, the school meets the 50-year test of criterion 4 of WP:SCHOOL. As such, the school meets and exceeds the notability standards of WP:SCHOOL and should be retained. Use of "scare quotes" to denigrate this "award" are unjustified and offensive. Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:SCHOOLS is a failed attempt to establish a guideline and has no validity on any basis as the source to justify inclusion of an article. Also, use of "ad hominem attacks" to denigrate objections to this award are unjustified and offensive. Shimeru 09:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It's hard to take you seriously when you refer to the completely meaningless WP:SCHOOLS3 as an excuse for deletion, while blithely brushing off WP:SCHOOL. WP:SCHOOL is the only productive attempt at achieving consensus, and failed solely because of the interference and obstruction of school deletionists. WP:SCHOOL3 is a pointless, non-viable effort that makes no effort at achieving consensus and will never be useful for any purpose if there is meaningful movement towards reflecting the views of the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users who have a broader definition of school notability than the hyper-narrow definition concocted at WP:SCHOOL3. Pointing out that the nominator misread the article and that two sheep blindly followed along is evidence of a basic violation of AfD practice, not an attack on the individuals. If you have an alternative explanation for this blatant discrepancy I'd love to hear your story. Alansohn 10:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You're entitled to your opinions, but I suppose we can now count out any good-faith efforts to contribute to reaching that consensus at SCHOOLS3. I'd hoped for better from an editor of your stature, especially after you seemed to acknowledge that that WP:SCHOOLS4 disruption of yours was counterproductive. And "Two sheep blindly followed" is "not an attack on the individuals"? As for the "discrepancy," it might be because the article itself claims "There is only one teacher," maybe? It seems perhaps you didn't read the article. Shimeru 10:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I've tried to make constructive suggestions there, and will continue to do so in the vain hope that anyone will listen, but it's clear that WP:SCHOOLS3 is NOT a serious effort to reach consensus; it's a fig leaf for deletionists to concoct what has the appearance of a guideline that is developed by the most extreme elements who believe that only a handful of schools in the world might be notable. WP:SCHOOL is still the only serious effort to reach a middle ground. Do you truly believe that these two "per noms" read the article in question? Of course I saw the statement that "There is only one teacher". I read it and interpreted it to mean "per class". Others saw several hundred students and misinterpreted it to mean "in the entire school". Which interpretation did you come to and which makes more sense? At least you had the intellectual integrity to ditto the nomination of someone who did his homework in evaluating the quality and merit of the article. You can't possibly tell me that the two "per noms" did the same. Alansohn 14:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
          • The thought processes, intelligence, integrity and good-faith motivations of other editors have nothing to do with the matter of hand. Please avoid dragging these red herrings into your arguments. wikipediatrix 14:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Of course they matter and you agree that they do. Why do you and others challenge those who specify "Keep - All schools are notable"? Alansohn 15:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Because, fact is, they're not, any more than all ships, all roads, all people, or all buildings are notable. It is completely ridiculous to include articles on schools which have no significant history, no notable students or staff, no non-generic programs, and no notability beyond "that's where my kids go to school". I would also point out that WP:SCHOOLS was not torpedoed by deletionists - I was part of the discussion and I know. It was sunk by the intransegence of inclusionists such as Nicodemus and Kappa, who were unwilling to compromise beyond the point that it =might= be acceptable to merge schools with their parent boards, and in the end refused to participate at all. Several deletionists were involved in the discussion, but for the most part, all were willing to cede that there were some schools which were worthy of articles. This issue will not be resolved by calling names or adhering to a policy that "all schools are notable". You can choose to be part of the discussion or you can choose not to. Regardless, it is still going on, and WP:SCHOOLS3 is the best compromise at the moment. Denni ^talk 19:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (Reply to Alansohn's original comment) (1) Your argument to keep relies on WP:SCHOOL, which does not enjoy consensus approval. The fact remains that there is no non-trivial independent coverage of either this school or of its receiving the "award." (2) "Use of 'scare quotes' to denigrate this 'award' are unjustified and offensive" -- first, I didn't denigrate the "award," I demonstrated that it's really an indicator of a good school; it's not a truly distinguishing award. But hey, don't take my word for it--look for non-trivial independent coverage of the school's receiving it. Such coverage doesn't exist. Pan Dan 16:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article on worthwhile topic. There's sufficient history to sustain an article (though doing so, takes time). Not all information instantly appears with Google, which the nom seems to assume. Also, I'm disturbed that the nom hasn't admitted to stating falsehoods, even though these falsehoods were identified before the nom's last comments. This is a public school, but the nom claimed it was private. It has 30 teachers, but the nom suggested it had only one. It seems the nominator based his nom on these two facts. Now anybody can make a mistake, and the nom's free to claim other reasons for deletion. But the nom hasn't properly addressed his errors. Simply saying "I was mistaken" would have earned some respect. Its not the mere fact of mistake (which we all make), but the fact he's had these errors pointed out, and has failed to acknowledge them, but has instead made other comments since. Also, the nom needs to understand what types of "attacks" are not allowed. *Personal* attacks are not allowed. However, attacking false information is certainly allowed. --Rob 17:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Any misdeeds the nom may or may not have done are irrelevant to whether the article should be kept, and I suggest we drop the topic here and let anyone who wants to carry on go to the nom's talk page. Now as to your arguments to keep--"worthwhile topic"? why? Following a thorough search of Google and Lexis-Nexis, it seems that no independent publisher thought this topic worthwhile enough to publish a non-trivial work on this school. So I don't know what you base "worthwhile topic" on. Next, if by "sufficient history to sustain an article" you mean that since the school is pretty old there must be local sources that have written about it over the years, I would say, first, you would have to actually find those sources to justify keeping the article, but second, local sources should be regarded as trivial, otherwise we'd be keeping articles on local businesses which are written up in local papers all the time. Pan Dan 17:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 00:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete non-notable school, 45% of the schools in my county are so-called "California Distinguished Schools". That alone is not enough to sway my vote. Trusilver 01:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pan and Trusilver. JoshuaZ 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep notable school with many awards!!! Audiobooks 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rob Thivierr, worthwhile topic with multiple verifiable sources. The school is approaching 70 years old and meets WP:SCHOOLS as well. Yamaguchi先生 03:34, 22 November 2006
• Delete, award is given often enough as to not qualify as a "major award"-this is not an award on the scale of an Oscar, a Grammy, or a Heismann Trophy, more on the scale of "good job" plaques for principals to have in their offices. Press coverage is not enough in-depth information from which to write a valid article from secondary sources. Seraphimblade 07:30, 22 November 2006 (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.