Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn valley elementary (second nomination)

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. Consensus is that Noroton has done enough to justify keeping the article.--Kubigula (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lynn valley elementary

Lynn valley elementary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The earlier AfD on this article was aborted by a CSD A7 speedy deletion. DRV overturned, on the rationale that no CSD applied. Still, delete, as lacking reliable sources. Xoloz (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge verifiable information (if any) with main school district article and redirect. Past Wikipedia consensus states that articles on schools can never be speedily deleted unless they are clearly bad faith contributions. Always take questionable school articles to AfD, don't speedy or PROD tag them. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a big difference between Speedies and Prods. I urge the continued use of Prods. The handful of editors who work hard on fixing up every school article in danger of deletion have hearts that are in the right place, but are not numerous enough to stop the proliferation of "permastubs." A Prod tag will get the creator of the article to either fix the article, merge it, or accept its deletion. Most of these stubs can be recreated in no time anyway, since they are so short. My system, of adding a merge-school tag, letting it soak for a while, and if nobody moves, eventually prod tagging a few, is my way of improving the overall quality of articles. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Mr Senseless. -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SCHOOL (note this is not official policy yet). High Schools are automatically notable, lower schools require something else to make them notable. Pharmboy (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect to School District 44 North Vancouver. BlueValour (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm currently working on adding sources to it. Not sure yet if I'm going to pass the WP:N standard. Editors may want to wait until I finish with it after tonight. So far I've found what I consider to be one source with significant information and three relatively minor sources. Stay tuned (unless you just prefer to delete all elementary school articles). Noroton (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I have to say that I'm not enthusiastic about school articles but there's now too much sourced information to merge. The school being based in a notable building and the notable alumnus tips me over into a keep. BlueValour (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I found the sources offering significant information on the school that I wanted, and in addition found numerous sources giving minor bits of information. One source: John Goodlad, who Publishers Weekly calls "one of the most influential educators in North America in the modern era (he founded the University of Washington’s Center for Educational Renewal and served as dean of UCLA’s Graduate School of Education)"[1] was a student-teacher there and was enchanted by the place in the 1940s. The other significant source gave information on the former school building, which calls it a significant piece of architecture in that area. I think these sources meet WP:N. Noroton (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree completely with Noroton's strong keep rationale. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, article now contains far too much well-sourced content for a merge into School District 44 North Vancouver to make any sense. --Stormie (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep nice work, Noroton. --W.marsh 06:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep good work Noroton, just goes to prove schools really do require a full AfD process. RMHED (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. It's a very well written article, but at the end of the day, it doesn't meet the basic notability requirements. No significant coverage from independant sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral, The article is padded with unencyclopedic tidbits such as the creation of a student council. The "greenness" of the building is encyclopedic, but could have been handled on a district page. I would not like to see many more articles like this one. Perhaps the Schools Project could work out a protocol for merging a group of school articles into a district page, and then make a weekly collaboration in which a sprawling mass of weak individual pages is turned into a great district page. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment in response to Brewcrewer and AnteaterZot: The "greenness" is a designation by a foundation that has nothing to do with the building but with student projects. Adding encyclopedic information to an article is not "padding", and encyclopedic information isn't a "tidbit". I tried to be very honest in my description of what I was adding, not making major claims about minor additions and describing what I judge significant coverage that meets WP:N. WP:N could be met, by the way, by a significant number of minor sources as well. Noroton (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The creation of a student council at an elementary school simply is not encyclopedic. The greenness of student projects is less notable than a building. This trend of finding every mention of a school may lead us to a school article in which a game of Duck Duck Goose is cited because it appeared on a local TV show. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, whatever leads to a better understanding of the school is encyclopedic. What you especially want in any encyclopedia article is information that describes the essence of the subject (it essentially educates children in this community) and what is particular to this institution that makes it different from others (the building, the atmosphere that made it a special school in the 1940s). And for both reasons, the green projects and student council, both unusual in an elementary school, are good additions. Your objections really don't seem to be to this elementary school article -- your objections are to having any articles on elementary schools that are nothing more than elementary schools. That's neither Wikipedia policy or consensus. By the way, I'm not replying here out of anger or anything, but because discussing these points is valuable for all of us to think about.Noroton (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It's marginally encyclopedic. That why I said "Neutral". My concern is having thousands of individual pages to the detriment of well constructed district pages. Consolidation onto town or district pages allows for better editorial oversight, and allows the users of Wikipedia to understand the school in context. In some cases, people choose to buy a home based on what school their kids will go to. A district page is more valuable than an individual page, most of the time. Why? Because most individual elementary school pages are either "permastubs", puff pieces written by the principal's secretary, vandalism magnets or WP:SCH#WNTI. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; solid article, meets all relevant content policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep excellent work Noroton. Hut 8.5 14:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Elementary schools are not notable. There are many, many thousands of schools with equal history and equally little to say. The allegations that this school's programs are unusual or exceptional are not true. Many other schools host similar programs. The history section of this page contains mere trivia. (No matter how well sourced, a person saying that "It's a joy to work here" is not encyclopedic content.) No objection to a merge and redirect to a page about the municipality the school supports but there is not enough here to support an independent article. Rossami (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it was one of the top education experts in North America who said that, and he didn't just say it, he gave some details. The atmosphere of the school in the 1940s is not trivia, it's potentially very important to alumni still alive today. I don't want to overstate the value of this citation, but it's neither trivia nor trivial. If you believe elementary schools are not notable, your disagreement is with WP:N and WP:ORG, which imply they and nearly every other subject can be notable, given solid enough sourcing. Noroton (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Lots of people like to read about trivia. It's still trivia. No change of opinion. Rossami (talk)
• Keep per expansion/sourcing.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be notable enough. Lawrence Cohen 23:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this school, as an exception to the proposed policy. It is notable in its own right. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

comment I think if you want to change the policy it is best done on the talk of the policy page. Pharmboy (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to comment I thik you misunderstood my post. I am not attempting to change any policy by my comments here. I am stating that a proposed policy is on the block for consideration, and I am on public record as backing this policy, which as a general rule would dictate that elementary sschool articles be redirected to the appropriate district. I was stating that this is the kind of elementary school which should be kept as an exception to that proposed policy. I am not attempting to extend the policy discussion here to get it ratified. I just felt the need to explain the difference between what I have said elsewhere about this class of school. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Content lacks a single instance of notability. Húsönd 16:59, 4 January 2008 (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.