Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linden 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 Keep. Great work by DoubleBlue. --Oxymoron⁸³ 08:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linden School

Linden 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 19:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 ♠ Talk 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable elementary school. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Linden School (Malden) and keep. Notable per news.google but so is Linden School (Toronto) Globe & Mail newspaper. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the Google News links suggest some notability. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is rather clear from the article that it says nothing. Fails, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ORG. Also Goggle news is not notability. News articles are nice but they are not indicative of notability. If they are, then I should have an article! Are you really saying that new reports are the sole basis for notability? Maybe it belongs on wikinews, but not here! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - we are saying that multiple secondary sources = meeting WP:N and there are plenty. Material exists to meet WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ORG as shown by excellent work by User:DoubleBlue. TerriersFan (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There is an overlap of information from news articles and encyclopedic content. Therefore, news reports can indeed be the sole basis for notability if they meet WP:N and other Wikipedia standards. Noroton (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - we delete pages that can't be sourced to show notability and this plainly can with a range of encyclopaedic content. Verifiable, independent sources show compliance with WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:N as regards notability; meets WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ORG. Noroton (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to add: Great work DoubleBlue! Noroton (talk) 01:33, 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.