Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Enterprise Independent School District

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Enterprise Independent School District

Mount Enterprise Independent School District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable and unlikely to garner further content. Icemuon 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. School districts, like municipalities, should be considered automatically notable as government bodies. Besides, people sometimes argue that an article on an individual school should be merged into the article for the appropriate school district, and if we start deleting school districts, it won't be possible to merge school articles that way. Besides, school districts sometimes take in several different municipalities, so they often can't be merged into the article for a single municipality or county. --Eastmain 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that school districts are notable by default since they are government bodies. That information belongs on government-sponsored sites where it can be looked up as necessary. I find it hard to believe someday these school district articles will evolve to be as complete as those found on government pages, for every single school district in the world. If people need that kind of information, they would not look for it here. Should every single law ever made also be in Wikipedia? There are other repositories for that kind of information.
    I would argue that school districts are not nearly as notable as municipalities. How often have you heard of someone looking up a school district as opposed to someone looking up a municipality? I don't even have any idea what district the schools I went to were in, but I certainly know what municipality I lived in.
    As for merging schools into school districts, if the schools are so un-noteworthy as to have to be merged, why are they even here? I'm all for deleting those school articles, as well as school district articles. Icemuon 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 17:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep please school districts are inherently notable and good for merging stubs to yuckfoo 21:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is almost no information in the article, beyond that it is a school district with one high school and one elementary school sharing a single campus. This is almost as minimal as a school district can get (I think there may be some with only one elementary school and no high school at all), There is not precedent. let alone guideline or policy. for all school districts being notable--if there were, this example would be a good one to use in trying to change the precedent.

Yes, Municipalities are notable. Their water districts almost never are, nor their fire districts, nor their library districts, nor their school districts. DGG 00:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep school districts are notable and suggested location for data merging per WP:LOCAL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep School districts are notable. The nom's comments "unlikely to garner further content" makes me want to propose a WP:AfD noms Do Not Have a CRYSTALBALL guildline.--Oakshade 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you then propose to keep all informationless articles just in case they should acquire further content in the future? That is like looking into a crystal ball -- it is the assumption that something will happen to fill out this article. Note that this is different from stubs -- stubs are starter articles on topics that can be expanded to a considerable degree. But how can this article be expanded into more than what it already is? If something happens involving this school district, then an article will be written on the event rather than the district itself. Let's say that there is a teacher's strike in this school district. Then probably an article will be written about the strike, mentioning the school district. But an article on the school district itself won't give any more information that what would be in the strike article. If in the future something happens that really warrants this school district an article, then the article will be written. Until then, it is contributing nothing. Icemuon 12:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course keep articles on notable subjects that can be expanded! That's what stub notices are for. My sarcastic response was about the nom's blindly presumptive "unlikely to garner further content" comment.--Oakshade 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Small school districts are as notable as the larger ones. Articles on the largest school districts in Texas (Houston, Dallas, etc.) are never disputed. If every other school district in the state has an article, why shouldn't this one? --Acntx 08:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• On balance I lean towards Delete per the reasoning of Icemuon and DGG, which seems reasonably sound. I'm also deeply umimpressed by the reasoning of ALKIVAR ( no reason is given why school districts are notable - this is simply asserted blandly ) and Acntx ( I have never seen an article on a large school district under review in an AfD debate, but to be consistent with the reasoning here I suspect I'd be inclined to the "delete" position for the same reasons ). If Acntx wishes to propose the review of other school district articles with a view to deletion, at present, and until I hear some better arguments, I'd be inclined to support their removal. WMMartin 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of content. As an example of a reasonably good school district article, I'd point to School District 39 Vancouver. The present one has so little content that it's hardly worth looking it up on Wikipedia. If more material can be found, then I think the article could be re-submitted. I'd argue that we shouldn't argue too much about notability, but we should worry more about future maintainability. So in my view it's fair to take points off for the current condition of the article. EdJohnston 01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is general consensus to have an article on all school districts. Content can be filled out by adding information about the various schools in the district. While this article currently is lacking significant content, that is not a reason to delete since encyclopedic content could be added to the article. If there is concern that the article is not past a stub, then the correct action is to add the proper {{stub}} tag rather then deleting. Vegaswikian 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to find a reference to this "general consensus to have an article on all school districts" that you mention, but haven't seen it. Please would you show me where it is, along with the supporting reasoning ? Thanks in advance. WMMartin 14:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There is a strong consensus to retain articles on school districts of all shapes and sizes, just as we do for verifiable towns regardless of their population. Silensor 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please provide a link to this strong consensus? It has been mentioned before up above, but the consensus discussion has not been found. Regards, Icemuon 10:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If we're debating the notability of entire school districts, that's news to me. We should refocus on lesser things, like those non-notable Pokemon characters that lack any type of third-party sources.  ;-) RFerreira 08:28, 7 February 2007 (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.