Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Oak 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, based on improvements by User:Hjal.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blue Oak School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

K-8 school. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to muni, ensuring the school name is on the muni page. tedder (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Napa, California. (Changing to Keep, see below} I thought the school might be notable because it is in a historic building, but Google Books barely mentioned it and Google News has only routine local coverage. (Why do I get the feeling I am the only one doing any actual evaluation of the schools in this series of nominations?) --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In short because there are two competing approaches here — one attempting to use a simple rule-of-thumb akin to the way we treat villages and non-notable hamlets (which, if correct, means there should probably be a "Speedy Deletion" process for obviously non-notable elementary schools in lieu of AfD), and a second which feels that every school article should be examined in the light of GNG. I'm fine with rubberstamping elementary schools "out" and secondary schools "in," with the benefit that a nearly infinite bogging down at AfD is averted and casual participation at AfD is possible. I feel positive that the sheer number of articles that will be coming to the abattoir will far exceed the energy of the tiny handful of volunteers who actually care to do proper investigation of sources, but if that's what the community actually wants, that's what it should have. If standing practice is out of step with consensus, then let's come up with a new set of practices and I will try to take enjoyment watching the black ants and the red ants fight over 100,000 stub articles on schools. I doubt too many have actually thought through the implications of this question, including, for what it's worth, Jimmy Wales. There really does need to be a binding RfC on this question. I'm tired of wasting my time and energy having to explain and defend standard practice on schools pieces, let's settle this. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect per nominator's own suggestion, but blank and merge any useful content  per usual  practice. Non  notable schools are generally  not  deleted; instead,  as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to  the article about  the school district (USA) or to  the article about  the locality (rest  of the world). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the  on  the redirect  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep although this may be a minority viewpoint I believe that the deletionists are being foolhardy in their blind opposition to schools articles. Every school office I have been to has dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall. This clearly meets GNG as they are multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore based on NRVE the only decision should be keep. Some schools are lucky enough to have these sources on google news but many older and in fact more historically notable ones do not and that is a shame. Microfilm is just as important. Based on this experience it should be clear that all schools are notable. Also at the very least this school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article, not deleted outright. This preserves the edit history for when sources are found. It should also be noted that this is part of a mass nomination and that should be frowned upon by the community as it shows there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination. I don't think even a PROD was tried first here. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hjal's contributions below. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 16:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Every public school is encyclopedic, including elementary schools, because of our function as a gazetteer.  I agree that elementary schools would often fit best into an annotated list or table in the article for a school district or community.  However, this school turns out to be "notable," both in the WP:N sense of having been covered in WP:RSs and in the common sense of being worthy of note.  The building is historic, by California standards in any case, and its restoration won a local preservation award. During the restoration, the HVAC system was replaced with the first geothermal heat pump system in a California school.  Every change in the head of school since 2002 has received coverage in the local daily newspaper.  This is all referenced in my current edit. The article is now too long to be merged, although an abbreviated version could still be included in a list of elementary schools at Napa, California.  Since it is a private school,there is no district article to list it in.--Hjal (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing my recommendation to Keep based on the improvements to the article by Hjal. I noted that the building could be historic, but my search did not turn up the evidence. Hjal's did and it is enough for a keep. I am less impressed by the local paper's coverage of changes in the school's administration, but the recognized historic building makes the school notable. Good work, Hjal. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * redirect to Napa, California The RSes provided have trivial coverage of the school itself. I am not moved by the run-of-the-mill news coverage when the headmaster changes. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  23:58, 16 January 2012 (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.