Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oak Hill Elementary

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. Computerjoe's talk 20:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Hill Elementary School (St. Cloud, Minnesota)

• Nothing but a school homepage...except that it already has one on the real WWW. Nothing noteable, nothing that belongs on an encyclopedia mboverload 01:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If this is kept, it should probably be moved to Oak Hill Elementary (St. Cloud, Minnesota) and Oak Hill Elementary be turned into a disambig per [1]. -- JLaTondre 02:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If kept, it needs serious {{cleanup}}. Fluit 03:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as all schools are notable, but remove the Staff section, and the Administrative deaths section. Carioca 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just my opinion, but I fail to see why all schools are notable (especially elementary schools). There is no determinative guideline or policy on that point. Fluit 03:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment that I believe general precedent is that highschools are notable, not all schools, but I may be wrong on this matter. TheProject 05:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I beleive the precident for 2005 and 2006 is to keep almost all verifiable real K-12 schools, inlcuding elementaries (only deleting non-verified, non-accredited/non-licensed, attacks, no-contexts, and copyvios). This has been an almost unbroken precedent since September. --Rob 07:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per mboverload. If it were up to me, I would delete essentially all high schools and the smallest colleges (under 200 students), but drawing the line between what is kept and what is deleted under high schools and above elementary schools and middle schools seems like a reasonable compromise. -- Kjkolb 04:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I concur with Rebelguys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep since we have been keeping just about all elementary schools in the past, and there is no need to remain inconsistent. Strongly agree with Carioca that the sections on staff (Wikipedia is not a directory) and recent deaths (Wikipedia is not a memorial) need to go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent for schools. Also, I toasted the staff list, and recent deaths. --Rob 07:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Metros232 11:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Carioca Markb 12:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is a non-article. We have: the name of the principal, the name of the administrative assistant, and the fact that it's currently in X term, which will be out of date in a couple of weeks. Nonsensical. This is an elementary school, every village has one! I am a governor of a school just like this, and I do not think they are notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "I am a governor of a school just like this" is a non arguement. Pretty much everything that warrants an article has somebody who is associated with it, and any of those people might be a Wikipedian. On you're comment "every village has one". Well, every U.S. village also has an article on the village itself, and eventually almost all villages will (even when the population is microscopic). Once upon a time, a few Wikipedians insisted those were non-articles, that must be deleted. They're still here. --Rob 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --cholmes75 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent. It's not a "non-article" (excuse the double negative), it's just a stub. We don't delete articles just for being stubs. --Tango 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no inherent notability for schools... no applicable accepted guidelines for schools, so this is just a basic judgement call.--Isotope23 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable. Jimpartame 15:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Thivierr and others have done a great job cleaning the article and what remains is notable. - sYndicate ^talk 15:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep schools are notable.  ALKIVAR™ 18:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

An elementary school is notable? --mboverload 18:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Allow me to play devil's advocate here. How come all schools are notable? Because they serve lots of people? So if that's true, how come I can't create an article for a Wal-Mart store down the road from me? That serves hundreds of people a day. Metros232 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The elementary school I went to has been a much larger effect on my life than the local Wal-Mart. Jimpartame 19:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Effect on your life" is a pretty poor argument for Wikipedia inclusion. By that argument I could say that a specific building I once worked in that is located in a specific town should have it's own Wikipedia article because events that transpired there had a profound effect on my life; more so than any school I've ever attended.--Isotope23 13:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If that building had profound effects on hundreds of people, like an elementary school, then yes, it should have a Wikipedia article. Jimpartame 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete It's not really that bad of an article, but then, if in fact there is such an official policy that states elementary schools are non-notable, then there are grounds for deletion..... --Pilot|guy 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No one has actually explained how individual elementary schools are notable. Duckdid 23:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Let's put this debate behind us. CalJW 03:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  15:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as non-notable. No media reports, no Presidential Medals of Freedom, nothing written about this school that differentiates it from the thousands of elementary schools in the world. Schools do not get a free pass merely for existing. Fagstein 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this is a notable school we should cover and verifiable Yuckfoo 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's verifiable, you should be able to find reliable sources. List some and I'll change my vote. Fagstein 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Here's one, which you could have found with Google or by looking at the article itself: http://stcloud.k12.mn.us/~oakhill/. Jimpartame 00:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Just because something has a web page doesn't make it notable. I'm sure there is a page somewhere dedicated to banannas injected with lemon juice, yet we don't have that article here. What about a forums? We delete non-notable forums all the time. Please re-read the notability requirements. Thanks! --mboverload 00:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm aware that the existence of a Web page is not the reason that this school is notable. I was replying to Fagstein, who wanted to know if there were reliable sources. Jimpartame 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I was referring to third-party sources. Fagstein 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Here you go. Information about the history of the school's construction. If you're still not sure the place exists after that, here's one of the news stories that mentions it. You can find more such mentions using Google. Jimpartame 23:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't doubt the school's existence. But mere existence alone is not sufficient to base an article from. There must be something interesting about the school itself that third-party reliable sources have picked up on. Fagstein 00:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                • You said that if I listed a reliable source, you would change your vote. I did that, and then you said what you really wanted were third-party sources. I pointed some of those out to you as well. Now you're saying you want some interesting facts about the school that have been picked up in reliable sources. If I provide that, I have no doubt that you'll change your requirements a third time. (Or possibly just say it's not very interesting to you.) Your claim that the article is not verifiable has been thoroughly dealt with; I'm not going to spend any more time on your shifting requests. Jimpartame 00:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • No personal attacks please. If you don't want to defend the article, that's your problem, it'll likely just get deleted. What I'm looking for is reliable third-party sources about the school. Merely mentioning it in passing in an article hardly qualifies. There has to be a reason for the article's existence other than the fact that this school exists. The street corner outside my apartment exists, and I can write many things about it, or even find a newspaper article that makes reference to it, but it's not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Fagstein 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you think makes it a notable school Yuckfoo? Metros232 23:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clearly not notable. Cedars 01:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle, though I would personally prefer to see elementary schools and middle schools covered in a singel well written article covering the local school district rather than individual schools. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep schools are notable BMurray 05:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. LazyDaisy 06:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons established at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 07:18, 16 May 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.