Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lida Hooe 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 keep. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lida Hooe Elementary School

Lida Hooe Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No assertion of notability. Merge into List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District and Delete. Vegaswikian 06:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect per established precedent to Dallas Independent School District. Delete is not possible for GFDL reasons after merge. TerriersFan 17:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • STRONG Keep I added information from a number of Dallas Morning News articles on aspects of the school: a false accusation of fondling; a former mathematics teacher and a band leader who kept winning regional awards. This school clearly meets WP:N. Noroton 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep following excellent work by Noroton so that the page now unquestionably meets WP:N. TerriersFan 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per szyslak. There's nothing about the math teacher that's notable (a thirdhand mentionthat he was fast at calculating?), the band awards are not notable, and (sadly) the accusations are not unusual enough to merit notice. In an article on false accusations of sexual abuse this might be worth noting, and I would not object to such a merge if others felt it was needed. Of course in that case (to preserve history) the page could be redirected to its district instead of deleted. (It could also be recreated from the information in the link.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Elementary schools that make a credible claim of notability are not the rule, but the improvements and expansion by Noroton with reliable and verifiable sources satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unfortunately, the work done by Noroton shows that a couple of the teachers may almost be notable - but not the school, because the external references are about individual teachers, each of whom touched the lives of individual students. None of the external references are about the school hence WP:N is not met.Garrie 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the band citations most definitively apply to the school as it is a school activity. Also, it is not possible to separate teachers from the school since the environment in which they work affects what they do. TerriersFan (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course you can separate the two. If a teacher has references about him, he deserves an article. The school, unless it is the object, does not necessarily. That's like saying that we need to have an article about the home of Stephen King. Not unless it is notable in and of itself. And band awards do apply to a school but I think the editor above was judging that they did not establish notability for that school. Epthorn (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm always amazed by the STRONG keeps that appear on these, as if adding that word will help an argument. I don't feel that this school, in and of itself, really establishes notability. It has a teacher and perhaps a band that does so, but I tend to believe in individual notability rather than the up/down variety. That said, I'm not too anxious to delete the article since it seems to show effort towards notability (at least it now appears to try and establish it). Epthorn (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOT establishes Wikipedia to not be a school directory and it is my opinion that this article does not prove to meet WP:N and as such must be deleted. While the notes on LHES people are nice, it does prove that the school itself is notable. SorryGuy 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep view. My reading of WP:N is that multiple, non-trivial references are need and this page has plenty of them. I really don't see the benefit of trying to apply narrow policy interpretations to delete a clean and useful page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:21, 21 November 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.