Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freetown 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 no consensus, default to keep. henrik•talk 00:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Freetown Elementary School
Mention is made on the talk page that this article barely survived a VfD in 2005, although the history doesn't seem to verify that. Notability has not been established since that time. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Non notable. Also, insufficiently sourced for the claims it is making, but those claims aren't good enough anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Per above. Lacks RS. School is unremarkable and besides perhaps a school website, I doubt much of the claims could be verified anyway. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. However, I take exception to the term claims. They are facts, whether they can be cited in a published work or not. If you lived here, you would know. Since you don't, you have to take the word of those who do. Otherwise, Wikipedia is a waste. Sahasrahla (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: That certainly goes against a very important policy here, and thats Verifiability. The first line of that policy is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
*Merge and redirect to its entry at Freetown, Massachusetts. Since the editors of the locality article consider the school significant enough to describe it, not having a redirect is illogical. TerriersFan (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - following improvements that mean the page now meets WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and rjd. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - Neither addressed why you would wish to delete a helpful redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Re-direct to Freetown, Massachusetts - Seems to be appropriate re-direct case to a article with a larger scope, full deletion is not necessary. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)- Weak keep - The article has significantly changed so a speedy re-direct is no longer as appropriate. Elementary schools are usually not notable enough for their own article, but in this case some independent and reliable sources are used to reasonably justify keeping it. However, the article would benefit from further sources and expansion. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Freetown, Massachusetts which is the common-sense approach to these type of articles. RFerreira 07:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is now established with sourcing from The Boston Globe and the New Bedford Standard-Times. Closing admin, please discount previous notability comments which were not referring to the new WP:HEY sourcing. Verifiability is not a deletion issue and is dealt with through other means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noroton (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment local news on student storytelling, parking problems and building improvements are unencyclopedic. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Calling them "unencyclopedic" is thoroughly subjective. Massive building improvements to a small school quite obviously have a large impact on the education offered in that school, as the new paragraphs make clear. Educational programs that other schools may not have are also precisely the type of information most readers would want. Since the school is the major venue for local government meetings in that town, parking problems that particularly affect those meetings also qualify as important information. The school has received attention from news organizations outside of town on these topics. Noroton (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the information should be merged to the towns page, then? What you are saying that this is notable information about the town. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why, because one of the three items I mention (parking) has to do with the fact that they hold town meetings there? The parking situation has a daily impact on the school, so it's even more important in relation to the school as an educational institution, although information on another use for the school building doesn't mean that the information can't be put in the article. And then there are the other two points which are directly related to the school's main function.Noroton (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, then consider your objection refuted by the sentences just above that you haven't responded to. Noroton (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- As the article stands now, it has sources indicating that the school is a part of a school district (unencyclopedic), has x number of students (unencyclopedic), an annual food drive (unencyclopedic), average scores (unencyclopedic), a parking shortage (unencyclopedic), some new classroom space (unencyclopedic), meeting space for the town (unencyclopedic), an expansion with computer labs (unencyclopedic), a principal with a flair for fundraising (unencyclopedic), some accounting irregularities (unencyclopedic), a story-telling festival (unencyclopedic), and a new special ed program (unencyclopedic). Perhaps an argument could be advanced that taken together, the school is barely notable. Or, it could be that many people worked really hard to find sources, and this is the best they could come up with. Certainly, the information could be moved to the district and town pages without wasting all the effort that was made to save this article. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, then consider your objection refuted by the sentences just above that you haven't responded to. Noroton (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why, because one of the three items I mention (parking) has to do with the fact that they hold town meetings there? The parking situation has a daily impact on the school, so it's even more important in relation to the school as an educational institution, although information on another use for the school building doesn't mean that the information can't be put in the article. And then there are the other two points which are directly related to the school's main function.Noroton (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the information should be merged to the towns page, then? What you are saying that this is notable information about the town. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Calling them "unencyclopedic" is thoroughly subjective. Massive building improvements to a small school quite obviously have a large impact on the education offered in that school, as the new paragraphs make clear. Educational programs that other schools may not have are also precisely the type of information most readers would want. Since the school is the major venue for local government meetings in that town, parking problems that particularly affect those meetings also qualify as important information. The school has received attention from news organizations outside of town on these topics. Noroton (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment local news on student storytelling, parking problems and building improvements are unencyclopedic. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the sources found doesn't indicate notabilty and are way too local This is a Secret account 04:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're operating on your own personal definition of notability, not Wikipedia's. I don't mind your doing that, but personal definitions have their limits. Wikipedia's definition of notability has nothing whatever to do with being local or not local. And the Boston Globe is something like 50 miles away from this community, so that source isn't very local. Noroton (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are millions of school buildings in the world. Many of them have been renovated. My concern is that these things are news, and Wikipedia is not news. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree, having school renovations isn't a claim of notabilty This is a Secret account 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- That there is overlap between news and encyclopedic content is obvious. Information from news stories added to this article is encyclopedic, since the information is either (a) what is descriptive in an enduring way or (b) is history relevant to understanding the school and its place in its community (and 95 percent of the information added falls under (a)). I saw other news stories that didn't provide this type of information and didn't use them. The added information would be significant even if this article attained featured status.
- You're operating on your own personal definition of notability, not Wikipedia's. I don't mind your doing that, but personal definitions have their limits. Wikipedia's definition of notability has nothing whatever to do with being local or not local. And the Boston Globe is something like 50 miles away from this community, so that source isn't very local. Noroton (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Article would benefit greatly from further expansion. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, a reasonable effort. DGG (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Freetown & Lakeville Public Schools this isn't notable enough for it's own article but would fit nicely as part of the public schools article. Arthurrh (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - it would completely overbalance the district article. It merits its own page by virtue of multiple sources that meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes there are sources, but I have to disagree, I don't see anything that is really notable. Arthurrh (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yet another personal definition of notability. When an article meets the criteria of WP:N, we should keep it. No one here has argued that this article does not meet WP:N criteria. Noroton (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Clarification, I am indeed arguing that this article does not meet WP:N. Arthurrh (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh no, you haven't argued it at all. You've only asserted it. For instance, argument would follow a phrase such as "This article does not meet Wikipedia notability standards because ..." An argument in favor of keeping the article would follow that phrase with "it meets the following criteria from WP:N: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And "significant" has a specific meaning, according to WP:N." Incidentally, several editors have continued to add information to the article from significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Noroton (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Parking problmes are not notable, they're common. An administrator coloring their hair isn't enough to include a school in an encyclopedia. School budget problems are apparently transitory, and arguably another not-uncommon issue. Students having a storytelling festival is not any long-term notability. A school having an openhouse isn't notable. Sorry, I just don't see anything that actually MEETS any guidelines in WP:N. Arthurrh (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can't salami slice the article. The multiple sources need to be taken as a whole and it is the fact of multiple, independent secondary sources that meets WP:N. Trying to get a clean, sourced. informative page deleted is bizarre, frankly. TerriersFan (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm asked for specifics, and when I give them I'm told to look at the whole instead. I don't know what to say. I've given my opinion - it just doesn't look notable to me, based on my reading of WP:NOTE. Multiple non-notable incidents does not equal notable in my book. Feel free to disagree and register your own choice. Arthurrh (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can't salami slice the article. The multiple sources need to be taken as a whole and it is the fact of multiple, independent secondary sources that meets WP:N. Trying to get a clean, sourced. informative page deleted is bizarre, frankly. TerriersFan (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Parking problmes are not notable, they're common. An administrator coloring their hair isn't enough to include a school in an encyclopedia. School budget problems are apparently transitory, and arguably another not-uncommon issue. Students having a storytelling festival is not any long-term notability. A school having an openhouse isn't notable. Sorry, I just don't see anything that actually MEETS any guidelines in WP:N. Arthurrh (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh no, you haven't argued it at all. You've only asserted it. For instance, argument would follow a phrase such as "This article does not meet Wikipedia notability standards because ..." An argument in favor of keeping the article would follow that phrase with "it meets the following criteria from WP:N: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And "significant" has a specific meaning, according to WP:N." Incidentally, several editors have continued to add information to the article from significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Noroton (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Clarification, I am indeed arguing that this article does not meet WP:N. Arthurrh (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yet another personal definition of notability. When an article meets the criteria of WP:N, we should keep it. No one here has argued that this article does not meet WP:N criteria. Noroton (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete- this article has sources, but fails to assert notability other than the holding of a storytime festival once a year. It may be notable to people in the town itself, but then perhaps mention of that festival (and the school) belongs on the town article, not here on an independent page.Epthorn (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — a good effort at establishing the notability of a local place. As stated above, "unencyclopedic" is not a clear discussion argument either way. --Haemo (talk) 21:07, 8 December 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.
