Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glover School

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. Davewild (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glover School

Glover School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable elementary school. Prod tag removed by somebody who was unhappy with another AfD nomination of mine. AnteaterZot 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 ♠ Talk 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable --EJF 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable elementary school. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a nn school. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. In need of expansion but sources are there. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • But how does that support notability? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Notability is POV and not a valid reason for deletion. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. --Jimbo Wales on Notability. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep An article for a school that provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Sources need to be better integrated with text. Alansohn 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per the existence of sources. User:Kernitou needs to learn that "keep - that's the point of wiki" is an extremely poor argument to use in any deletion discussion. For a start, 'wiki' is not short for 'Wikipedia' - and AfD debates are not a vote.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - another instance where proper research should be carried out before nominating. We don't delete on the state of the article but whether sources are available to establish notability and here there are plenty. We have a newsworthy murder plus other verifiable, secondary sources that easily meet WP:N. TerriersFan 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Alansohn's comment. It's notable. Noroton (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no assertion of notability the article. How does this meet any part of WP:ORG? How does a teacher being shot at home make the school notable? How does an article about the math program make the school notable? Research is not required before a deletion nomination, the editors behind the article must establish notability! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the sources need to be taken together; individual sources don't need to establish notability it is the fact of multiple, secondary sources that meets WP:N. Having said that, an article on the math program, the core of any school curriculum, most certainly goes to the notability of the school. Deleting a page on a notable subject is at least as bad as keeping non-notable material Consequently, responsible editing involves researching notability before nominating; anything else is game playing. TerriersFan (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The sources used are incidental to the school. 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) 01:21, 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.