Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cayuga Heights 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 delete. Wizardman 03:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cayuga Heights Elementary School

Cayuga Heights Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is about a local elementary school which has little content and does not explain why it is notable. Delete JForget 23:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep if editors add notable facts about this school; otherwise, delete. NHRHS2010 Talk 01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP is not a directory of elementary schools Corpx 01:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. This reads like an entry from a list of elementary schools in NY State, otherwise no content. No notability claimed, no notability found in a quick Google search. No citations. This could have been handled with a speedy or a prod, as I doubt it would have been contested, except maybe by the author (who attended the school). — Becksguy 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or combine into an article for the district, as with all such schools. A proposal to merge wouldn't have had to come here. DGG (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete asserts no notability. --Oscarthecat 07:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, there isn't even anything to merge in this case. It serves through the fourth grade and is in Depew, NY- no assertion of anything, really. --ForbiddenWord 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to appropriate district or city. VanTucky (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Non-notability as a reason for deletion is limited to category-specific guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:CORP (See WP:DP). Most of the arguments for deletion have to do with the current state of the article. Give editors an opportunity to add to and improve it. "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." (Again, see WP:DP). Valerius 03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What are we supposed to judge an article on if not its current state? Are we supposed to clairvoyantly extrapolate that reliable sources proving notability will be added? I think not. This article should not have been created in the first place if no sources lending notability exist to be used. And this isn't some brand-new stub that hasn't been given a chance to be sourced, it's been here since July 19th. Over a month isn't enough time to improve it and find at least one source? That's absurd. VanTucky (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP (at least temporarily). I agree with Valerius. If users have an issue with the content or presentation of content of an article, they should edit it themselves or request that the article's author do so, not simply delete it. If after a substantial period of time, the article hasn't been referenced/sourced, or other action taken to make it notable, then open it up for discussion about deleting it. (Sometimes, I think that wikipedians spend too much time deleting articles instead of trying to contribute positively to the article) --BaldDee 16:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I thought the consensus was that Secondary Schools were usually notable, but primary ones need to prove it. This article is so brief that it is hardly an article and does not show that it is not NN. Peterkingiron 17:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and Speedy delete as empty. Does anyone who proposes keeping believe that the single sentence asserts any form of notability? Vegaswikian 04:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to appropriate district or city. bbx 04:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • COMMENT to those above (Vegaswikian, Peterkingiron, etc...): I'm not suggesting that the article (as written) suggests notability. I am only suggesting that the article's creator or other interested editors be give the chance to edit the article with referenced sources which may establish notability. If after a given peroid of time, the sources are not located and/or added, then it is appropriate to open up the discussion regarding deleting the article. BaldDee 12:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment to BaldDee and Valerius. I agree with your philosophy about being too quick to delete without a chance for improvement. I think it's a systemic problem. In fact, I argued that exact same point here in the discussion on another article (please read it). The subject of this AfD is an extremely short entry (17 words) about an elementary school that just doesn't have any notability to find and include. At least I didn't find any. This is a non-notable vanity item, written by the author who attended the school, no more, no less. And it sat around for over a month without any change at all, so I think it had a chance, don't you? I will fight for articles that potentially can be improved. However, the discussion process is vital to a healthy Wikipedia, so bringing it up here was a good thing. Thanks. — Becksguy 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Depew, New York for the moment. Burntsauce 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Odds are its a long standing institution and should be covered. Mbisanz 02:20, 28 August 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.