Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis County Schools

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis County Schools

Lewis County Schools (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I believe this page has to be deleted as the article is written like an advertisement and Wikipedia is not an advertising service. I'm not sure whether the page meets the criteria for speedy deletion, So I'm sorry if nominating it in here was a mistake. Vaishu2 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a speedy deletion, but it certainly merits debate as a regular deletion. The more troubling part of this article is that most of the school pictures seem to be taken directly from the school district's website, except for the Bland Middle School photo (which has a winter photo in the article, but a spring photo on the web site). I'd urge someone to look into the copyvio pictures first, though I don't see any compelling notability for the district. Count this as a weak vote for deletion, I guess. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I tagged the clear copyright violations for speedy deletion. My guess is that the remaining one also came from the school website, and has been changed out since then. —Celithemis 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, little more than a collection of links. Hornplease 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a sea of red links. Nothing more. DarkAudit 14:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I would argue that school districts, like municipalities, are automatically notable. There will inevitably be news coverage about its taxing and spending decisions and any litigation that it may have been involved in. --Eastmain 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I unredlinked all the schools except for the high school, and added a reference about a human rights complaint against the district. --Eastmain 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment And I would argue that a blog is not a reliable source, and that when the largest paper in the region (Dominion-Post) takes virtually no notice, it's not notable enough. DarkAudit 16:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep School districts are notable by definition. I agree that the article as it existed at the point the AfD was initiated left much to be desired. With the schools unlinked (with the exception of the high school), we are in the ballpark format established by almost all school districts nationwide. For all those bothered by articles for individual schools, a district article provides a wonderful repository for any material that does not merit a standalone article. Alansohn 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notability is asserted. However, the copyrighted images, need to go. As well as more information provided about the school. Real96 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if we are to remove the thousands of articles on NN middle schools and elementary schools, the school district articles are the place to put the information. Thus I agree with the concept that they are almost always notable. (I'd make an exception for some that are composed of only 1 or 2 or 3 schools, where a larger unit of aggregation would make more sense.). DGG 01:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the article doesn't really consist of any notable concrete information, plus school districts are NOT inherently notable, at all.--Wizardman 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I see no notability issue, but I'm concerned about WP:V. I assume, however, that once somebody gets around to cleaning this up and making it a bit more encyclopedic, the district / school websites will be cited as sources. I don't see any controversial facts in any event, so it's ok for now. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Well, now that the notability has been asserted and the ad-like images have gone, I myself can't see any problem in keeping it, as long as somebody cleans it up and has it referenced.--Vaishu2 07:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per DGG. Noroton 16:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - as government bodies districts have inherent notability and I agree with DGG per their use for NN schools. TerriersFan 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above commentary. As this is a non-commercial entity, this hardly amounts to advertising. The myriad of McDonald's articles on the other hand... Burntsauce 23:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as school districts are inherently notable, and preferred locations to merge these smaller school pages into. RFerreira 07:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Can someone explain to me now school districts are inherently notable, when schols aren't? I don't get it.--Wizardman 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - school districts are government bodies and the consensus is that government bodies are inherently notable. A school district is also much broader based than an individusl school. TerriersFan 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• thats like saying a state isnt notable because it has towns with a population of 4. Keep per the valid comments above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - School districts are fair alternatives to individual school stub articles. This article needs some improvement but is notable. Camaron1 | Chris 10:52, 6 May 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.