Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alton C. Crews Middle 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 no consensus. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Alton C._Crews_Middle_School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable middle school. Astrovega 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Non-notable school, fails WP:CORP. The article has no reliable and independent sources, and I dought that anyone will find any online. *Cremepuff  222*  00:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dought [sic] and ye shall receive. Alansohn 20:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons stated by Cremepuff. Cedars 02:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete . There's plenty of information here, but unfortunately none of it evidences any notability, and none of it is backed by citation to reliable sources.  As a result, this article should be deleted per and now that we have citations to reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, the article satisfies WP:N and WP:V, so I'm switching to keep. Thanks for creating another quality school article! --Butseriouslyfolks 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A second look: I was asked to take another look at this article as it has been substantially improved.  However, I don't think it is there yet.  I'm looking at one solid reliable source, and it appears that article is primarily about the teacher and the trip, and that the school is incidental.  There are no citations to newspaper articles about the school winning the Intel award.  I point this out not because I question whether the award was received, but because I am not convinced of the notability of the award.  While it may be rare, scarcity does not demonstrate worth.  It's certainly not on the level of a Blue Ribbon.  In fact, the Intel award article (which is admittedly new) only cites to one reliable source, and it's a newspaper reporting on a local school winning the award, not an article on the award program itself.  Don't get me wrong -- the article is clearly much better now than it was at the start of the AfD.  It just hasn't crossed the WP:N threshold yet as far as I'm concerned. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From your commment just above it's impossible for me to figure out what additional citation about the award would satisfy you. There's a news brief from the Atlanta Constitution which certainly proves the award's existence, but the already cited news release from Intel itself about the award it sponsors is certainly independent and reliable in and of itself, or do you dispute that? The award was made in conjunction with Scholastic, another sponsor. I skipped Scholastic's news release because it didn't seem to add anything to it. I get the impression when you talk about notability that you're shifting back and forth from WP:N, which has a Wikipedia-specific definition relying on multiple, reliable, independent sources and a vaguer notion of "importance and fame". If we have two independent, reliable sources we have notability under WP:N, correct? Please clarify. Noroton 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Two reliable, independent sources: here and here. Noroton 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per bsf + the fact that schools are inherently nn . Noroton as done good work trying to resolve the inherent lack of notability for schools (i.e. it's a school, hence merits an encyclopedia article) in this specific case. The question, however, is whether the Intel award and it's locally-judged performance mean it now merits encyclopedic treatment. In my view, the answer is clear: no. However, I was lazy in my earlier vote; the content should be stripped of guff and merged into Gwinnett County Public Schools, with a redirect to that page per Yamaguchi below, who has got it exactly right. Eusebeus 08:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Eusebeus 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gwinnett County Public Schools. Other than the usual refusal to consider any option other than the destructive choice of deletion by the usual cast of characters, there is no valid justification not to redirect the article. All school districts are inherently notable; almost all high schools will be able to provide ample sources to establish notability; few middle schools will be able to demonstrate notability, and this school is no exception. A review of the school's website (including the student handbook), and a search of Google and Google News/Archive uncovers no material to support notability, little surprise for a ten-year old middle school. The claim that "schools are inherently nn" is patently false and disruptive, and proven false by the thousands of school article on Wikipedia and the hundreds upon hundreds of reliably and verifiably sourced articles where consensus is clear that the articles meet all of Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Alansohn 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Kudos to User:Noroton for finding the details regarding the 2006 Intel/Scholastics award, shared by only 16 schools nationwide. As revised, the article makes a prima facie case for notability. Alansohn 17:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, other stuff does exist . . .. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh?!?!?! And therefore you refuse to consider a redirect? What on earth does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS have to do with a single word of what I stated above? Alansohn 01:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have taken no position on a redirect. And, since you asked, I mentioned WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in response to your reference to "thousands of school article [sic] on Wikipedia". --Butseriouslyfolks 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gwinnett County Public Schools, as per Alansohn's argument. Deletion is not called for and the article should be resurrected easily when enough information can be gathered to show the school is notable enough. Noroton 14:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given what I found (see comment below) I have to change to Keep. Noroton 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect to GCPS - there is some encyclopaedic material to merge. TerriersFan 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC) *Keep and expand with the material turned up by Noroton, below, that shows the school meets WP:N. TerriersFan 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redir to GCPS. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - after sourcing and expansion now an unconditional keep. TerriersFan 20:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Gwinnett County Public Schools per WP:LOCAL and comments by Alansohn. Yamaguchi先生 04:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with Alansjohn about what a Google Archives search turns up. I found several articles that could be used to bulk up the article and justify notability under WP:CORP (a/k/a WP:ORG) that Cremepuff22 mentions up near the top. If someone wanted to use those articles and if editors wanted to follow WP:CORP and WP:N, the article could be retained. I personally don't have the interest, but the fact is that the school can meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Here's one article, this might be another, and another, and this looks extremely promising, and oh, my, my, just lookee here:

LINK

 Non-notable indeed. Um, shouldn't editors who nominate for deletion on grounds of notability start doing a Google News and Google Archives search first, and save the rest of us the trouble?? Noroton 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that compliance with WP:N and WP:V is initially the responsibility of the editor who creates an article, if everybody who marked items for deletion took the time to try to fix them first, the excellent content at Wikipedia would be buried by noncompliant articles, because the people doing the largely thankless job of cleaning up around here would not be able to keep up with the flood of inappropriate articles. It's hard enough just to try to tag them with all of the vandalism, copyright violations, attack pieces and other inappropriate posts.  Besides, some people make better writers, and some make better Wikignomes.  There's a place (and a need) for people with all sorts of skills here! --Butseriouslyfolks 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the time involved in a Google News or Google Archives search is much shorter than the time it takes to nominate an article and participate in the discussion, but to each his own. Even a link in the "external links" section to a relevant news article takes hardly any time, or it could be linked on the talk page. I guess I understand that, whether or not an article meets WP:N some won't want it. Noroton 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But a quick google search is not all that needs to be done. The sources have to be reviewed to assess whether they provide significant coverage of the subject, and they have to be worked into the article.  (External links are just that -- their presence does not indicate that the links support the asserted facts.  If the facts are drawn from an external link, the link should be listed under "references" or "sources" or some other appropriate heading.)  To some, writing encyclopedic articles seems to come naturally and effortlessly.  I can tell you though that it takes me a lot of time to write a properly sourced article that complies with WP's policies.  It certainly takes me a lot longer than tagging an article or even nominating it for AfD.  Since my life is already hectic from other obligations, that is the main reason I spend most of my time here copyediting, tagging and discussing, as opposed to writing content.  --Butseriouslyfolks 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional comment Well, I developed an interest and added the above information and some other information to the article. I think everyone who voted should reconsider. Noroton 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice job. Another case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. I believe that people who nominate these types of articles need to do more due diligence. Dhaluza 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Duh. Dhaluza 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not satisfy my own notability guidelines.-- trey  23:36, 20 June 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.