Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dixon 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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dixon Elementary School

This page is just 2 sentences. Do we really need a page on an Elementary school in a suburb of Vancouver? Pikachu9000 00:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It is verifable [1], but non-notable. If kept, do not expand with transient and generic information solely for the sak--Masssiveego 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)e of expansion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't agree with WP:SCHOOL, but right now it's the closest thing we have to a policy. List it on Schoolwatch and wash your hands of it. --djrobgordon 00:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Expand and Keep per WP:SCHOOL, per djrobgordon. Quentin mcalmott 01:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per well-established consensus. Monicasdude 01:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for that, I am going to vote Delete as a reminder that consensus was hardly established to keep schools; consensus was established to stop the pointless debating as it was becoming emotional and disruptive. Eusebeus 12:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly referencing WP:SCHOOL; otherwise, I would have mentioned it. Mostly talking about the consistent results in parallel AfD discussions. Monicasdude 22:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand as per WP:SCHOOL. Carioca 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SCHOOl says '"Thus, the only fitting criterion is how much verifiable, NPOV information can be found on the school"'. In this, not much, so delete. BrownHairedGirl 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you arguing that no verifiable, NPOV information can be found on this school, or just that this information hasn't yet found its way into this article? --djrobgordon 02:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per WP:SCH and all schools are notable. --Terence Ong 02:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand all school articles. Hawkestone 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn elementary school --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and then Expand.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 03:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SCHOOL and then curse whoever wrote WP:SCHOOL with an eternal hell of too inclusive policies. JoshuaZ 06:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Delete There doesnt seem to be much actual consensus for WP:SCHOOL so I don't feel bad changing my vote. JoshuaZ 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SCHOOL. JIP | Talk 08:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. How would we ever have any articles about schools if they were immediately deleted? ProhibitOnions 10:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and expand per WP:SCHOOL. I've listed a request for expansion on the WikiProject Vancouver page already (this school falls under it) but nobody's answered yet. I'll see what I can do as well. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and list on Schoolwatch. Does not currently meet WP:SCHOOL guideline, since it has only two sentences, but the guideline also suggests giving Schoolwatch a shot at it before deleting it. This vote is to do so. If Schoolwatch can't do anything with it, let it be deleted. Powers 13:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The WP:SCHOOL proposal calls for merging, not deletion. Also, note that guideline pages in Wikipedia have --Rob 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Have what? And indeed, I know WP:SCHOOL calls for merging, but at the time I voted there was nothing to merge. Powers 19:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If a suitable target is found, and its not expanded, it can be merged if somebody wishes to. --Rob 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Amended: nobody is interested in doing any decent merges (or even discussing any issues related to them), so I shouldn't pretend that's possible. --Rob 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable elementary school; and per non-consensus nature of WP:SCHOOL.--Isotope23 18:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. To answer the nom's question: Yes, we need a page on an Elementary school in a suburb of Vancouver. The article had been expanded nicely and can only get better over time. Suggest that someone close this nom as soon as possible. -- JJay 19:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Per WP:SCHOOL --Larsinio 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and kill the author or WP:SCHOOL Are all schools notable in my opinion? HELL NO. Are some? Yes, but this one isn't. However my opinion is my opinion, not wiki policy. Mike _{(T C)} 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Osomec 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep needs expansion. --Masssiveego 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if non-existant pokecruft can go in wikipedia see Perappu then ALL schools can stay. Oscar Arias 05:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs MAJOR expansion though. Newyorktimescrossword 07:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just looking at the template on that page makes me believe that by this time in 2007 half of wikipedia will be articles about schools, roads, and train stations. However, pending a change in our school notability criteria it doesn't make sense to just delete the one's that get sent to AfD by unsuspecting newpages patrollers who don't realize that school articles never get deleted. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per the WP:SCHOOL project. Yamaguchi先生 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 04:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• While I personally agree that most schools (this one included) aren't notable enough to deserve Wikipedia articles, AFD consensus has fairly consistently gone against my view. I don't see a convincing case for singling this one out as a uniquely non-notable example of schools. Keep unless you're genuinely interested in trying to rebuild a consensus against schools in general (and good luck to you if you try.) Bearcat 19:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete its already clear that there are some people who feel that the debat on schools is closed and the result is that every school is notable. It's not clear to me that the debate is closed and it is clear to me that absent some dictate most schools are not notable, including this one. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's incredibly hard for me to imagine any school below a High School level as notable in any way unless it was at one point taken over by terrorists, and even in that case we don't have an article for the school itself, just the incident. WP:SCHOOL needs to be seriously revised. -AKMask 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You get right on that, AKMask. And when you're done, you can start working on revising the inclusion criteria for Pokemon characters, professional ball players of all sorts, train stations, small towns, Star Wars fiction... Silensor 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you honestly arguing that 3 sentences means notability? I can not imagine someone thinking that WP:SCHOOL in its current state is acceptable. I can see inclusionist principals wanting to keep many schools, but 3 sentences for notability is beyond the pale. -AKMask 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It is really ridiculous though, I mean if you compare WP:SCHOOL for WP:CORP for example. JoshuaZ 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • In the future, when you are dissatisfied with the length of any given article, try expanding it. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Silensor 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        • But we would never say that for a corporation. Sometimes they just aren't notable. Yet that never happens with schools because of this inane policy. JoshuaZ 19:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Obviously not everyone thinks it is an inane policy, otherwise it wouldn't exist, but you are welcome to express your POV here or on the respective guideline pages. Silensor 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
            • It is not an inane policy, because, well, it's not policy yet. It's still at the proposed policy level, which is where anything starts in that field. It's an active policy proposal, meaning its being fixed, debated and utilized, which is better then the failed policies that pop up every now and then, but I could put up a policy proposal page stating anything I want and try to get it accepted. Doesn't mean it's binding till it reaches the accepted policy stage. -AKMask 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge after the debate here is finished. Vegaswikian 23:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep and please do not merge or erase this it is important Yuckfoo 01:09, 18 March 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.