Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bixby Elementary School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 redirect to Hacienda La Puente Unified School District. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bixby Elementary School

Bixby Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't appear notable. Epbr123 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge to school district article, if we can find what school district it's a part of. Delete otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hacienda La Puente Unified School District as that seems to be the general consensus on elementary schools with no independent notability. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. In view of the apparent interest and initiative of a brand-new Wikipedia editor in creating this article, I recommend that the time frame of the deletion process be considered to run to at least July 15, 2008.
This will give more time and opportunity, in the rest of the school term, for the article to be improved and for notable aspects of the school to be written up. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) The preceding comment was left on the article's Talk page when the ProD tag was removed. Moved by AnturiaethwrTalk 14:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect per above. While I understand Wanderer's comment, it [1] doesn't appear that there's anything notable to write about this school. RS coverage is limited to name drops of attendees and people who worked there. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Travellingcari. You probably understand that I was only asking for a delay in the process on the chance that the article creator returned to work on the article, taking into account that if the article remains in place somewhat longer than it otherwise would, no harm is done thereby.
I think there is a problem in that reading the formidable template-created boxes at the top of the article will tend to discourage a new editor from continuing to edit. Whether this has actually occurred, I do not know. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
That's part of why I support a redirect/merge, if the person re-visits the article they'll see the content is still there and maybe continue to edit. While I think 99.99% of elem schools are n-n, I think immediate prod/afd etc. scares off potential future editors TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:01, 4 May 2008 (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.