Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/École Poirier Elementary 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   redirect to School District 62 Sooke. JForget 00:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

École Poirier Elementary School

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable elementary school.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  01:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree that the school is non-notable. It is very notable to the local community, and is one of the leading schools in the region experimenting with innovative uses of Web 2.0 tools to promote learning and communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grarts (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Grarts is the creator of the article. Edison (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to School District 62 Sooke. The usual practice is that high schools are entitled to their own article, and that elementary and middle schools have to demonstrate a wider recognition beyond the community per WP:GNG (I can forsee that this may be able to establish that depending on how many schools in B.C. have the French immersion program).  Edward Milne Community School would be notable since it graduates the students.  Poirier would probably have to demonstrate some national recognition, or at least province-wide.  Mandsford (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Smerge to School District 62 Sooke. Random individual elementary schools are not generally kept as separate articles in AFD. Apparent lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, though routine school activities are doubtless covered in the local newspaper. Edison (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem that the criterion of 'noteworthiness' is somewhat arbitrary when applied to schools. Secondary schools being automatically entitled to an entry simply due to the age level of students that they service is a questionable indication of noteworthiness. As valuable entities in and of themselves, any school should be entitled to an entry, so long as the information contained within the entry is verifiable.Grarts (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010
 * What is the benefit to the wider community and to Wikipedia by deleting elementary schools as a general rule, as opposed to the benefit of retaining them? Grarts (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2010
 * I will have to admit to not being entirely familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, but in reviewing what Wikipedia is not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not), I am unconvinced of the merits of removing this entry. Is the comment about an elementary school needing to be noteworthy a reference to policy, or practice? Grarts (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2010
 * Comment There are many occasions where an elementary school can meet the requirements of WP:GNG (a factor of which is widespread recognition) to satsify more editors than not that it is notable enough for its own separate article. The conventional justification as to why a high school is inherently notable, yet a primary school is  not be is not about the age of the students (an 18 year old is no more deserving of a good education than an 8 year old), but about the authority of the high school to grant a certificate or diploma.  WP:NHS is not a policy so much as it is a summary of the common outcome of the debates over schools.  As a matter of etiquette, elementary school articles that are part of a class lesson that introduces students to Wikipedia, tend not to get nominated immediately.  After a week, it's presumed that the class has moved on.  Finally, nobody opposes retaining information about an elementary school in some location.  Where the disagreement begins is in retaining that information in a separate article, rather than as part of a school district article.  Please note that if this were to be redirected, it means that one would click on a link to École Poirier Elementary School (or type it into the search box) and be transferred to an article that is not called "École Poirier Elementary School".  Nothing is lost, other than, perhaps, a small measure of school pride.  Mandsford (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There appears to be a great deal of subjectivity to the guidelines on notability. It would seem that if the person suggesting deletion has never heard of the subject, the article in question becomes a candidate for deletion. This does seem somewhat arbitrary. Further, if others are not familiar with the subject, then it seems that deletion becomes even more likely. At what point in the debate is the decision made regarding deletion vs. retention? Grarts (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I am thankful that the subject of the article does not suffer from some of the challenges cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linwood_Elementary_School_%28Kansas%29, it does seem to confirm the arbitrary nature of determining 'noteworthiness'. The debate over deleting Linwood dates to 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linwood_Elementary_School_%28Kansas%29) and resulted in a 'keep'. I hope that noteworthiness does not equal notoriety.Grarts (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate your frustrations with the Articles for Deletion process-- you've been a contributor to Wikipedia for more than a year ago, but this may be your first encounter with "AfD". We are all unfamiliar with Poirier school, other than what we are told about it from the article and the sources listed in the article or found on a search.  What we base our arguments of keep or delete upon is our opinion about whether it is demonstrably notable in the way that Wikipedia defines notable (which is a longer story).  Essentially, anyone can nominate an article for deletion.  As a rule, we assume that everyone is acting in good faith and that their reasons for nominating an article, or supporting or opposing the article, are based upon their view of how policy should be interpreted.  At that point, it comes down to the arguments made by the people who weigh in and the reasons that they advance.  Arbitrary?  Perhaps, although "subjective" may be the better word, since the determination of notability is based upon each speaker's opinion about whether something is notable enough for inclusion.  I don't think that anyone who opposes the article is advocating that all traces of Poirier Elementary be expunged from Wikipedia.  As with anything else, the familiarity that they have with the subject is based upon what they are told about it from the article itself.  Some will read an article and conclude that the school is notable (or that there are other sources that could prove it to be notable), while others will do the same reading and searching and conclude that it is not notable.  As to when the decision takes place, usually (not always) it's about seven days after the nomination.  Mandsford (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question As the originator of the article, am I allowed to post a keep/delete comment (according to guidelines or recognized etiquette within the wikipedia community? Grarts (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, by all means. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You already did so, above, right after the deletion nomination. You could go back and edit it to add "Keep" at the beginning. Do not add an addtitional Keep !vote. Edison (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hasn't happened yet, so far as I can tell. It's no different than the nominator saying "Delete, as nominator".  Until someone puts the bold print around keep, delete, merge, etc., there isn't a !vote (not that it's a vote anyway, which is why we call it a "!vote") but the bold labelling of one's opinion makes it easier for an administrator to see, at a glance, how many people are registering an opinion).  For the same reason, if a person has done this more than once (usually a new person), then we strike through the additional bold !vote for the same reason.  Doesn't really matter where you place your !vote, up there, down here, in the middle, who cares, so long as you don't have more than one !vote on the board.  Despite the length of the discussion, there are only four people who have actually weighed in.  Mandsford (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The application of the 'noteworthiness' criterion to elementary/middle schools is highly subjective. In the absence of clear indications to the contrary, I believe that the debate on this article should revert to the default (which is, as I understand it, 'keep'). Grarts (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly have learned a lot more about how Wikipedia works, and the community as a whole functions throughout this debate. I still believe that if one level of school is noteworthy, they all are (regardless of the ages of the children attending). I will concede that some schools are more noteworthy than others due to special accomplishments within the school or its community. However I reject that there is any inherent noteworthiness of a school due to the ages of the children attending it, or whether students graduate from it. There are many, many secondary schools. Most of them graduate students. Therefore, the fact that secondary schools have students who receive high school diplomas is not really noteworthy. In fact, I would venture to say that a secondary school granting a diploma is quite ordinary. If this is true (that secondary schools are not particularly noteworthy), then this substantiates the argument for retention of elementary and middle schools with their own entries in wikipedia, as it ensures an equal standard is applied to all schools (that there is an inherent noteworthiness to schools by virtue of the fact that they exist and serve a community). Grarts (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy towards schools continues to evolve, mostly through discussions here at the AfD forum, where I feel that the real development of policy takes place, and where even one person's opinion, if it persuades others, can affect whether an article stays or goes. I hope your intro to "the politics of Wikipedia" hasn't turned you off from it, because it's a great site.  Just as the articles are a place to sharpen one's writing skills, AfD is a lab where I sharpen my argumentative skills.  The real problem for me hasn't been how to counter someone else's statement, so much as it's been how to counter it in a civil fashion.  Mandsford (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to School District 62 Sooke. No reliable sources to establish notability of a primary school (primary schools rarely meet Wikipedia's consensus for notability, except for Blue Ribbon Schools and the equivalent). tedder (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to School District 62 Sooke per usual practice. I am prepared to reconsider if sufficient reliable sources can be added during the AfD. The head is called Graham Arts. so presumably this is Grarts with a mild COI. TerriersFan (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2010 (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.