Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burt Township Schools


 * 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. BD2412 T 04:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Burt Township Schools

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The district is miniscule. There are two teachers at the elementary level. This is not a major or significant institution. All the sourcing is to the organization's own website. There are not really adequate 3rd party sources that give us enough clear coverage of school district to justify having seperate articles on them in absolutely every case. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 11.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is a public school district, which means there are a lot of state sources for information. The article is just a poor stub that has potential to be expanded.  Just because the district has a low enrollment doesn't mean it isn't verifiable and locally notable.  A state school district doesn't needs a certain number of students or be part of an urban area to make it more notable; see Bois Blanc Pines School District or a lot of the articles in .  I'd say give it a chance.  —Notorious4life (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have failed to identify any other resources we could add to improve the article. Currently everything here comes from the district's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a school district that includes a grammar school and a high school (operating in a single building) and serving an area covering 258 square miles. The district once had > 500 students but has shrunk as much of the population moved elsewhere. The district includes a historic school building dating to the 1920s and a 1,300-acre school forest along Lake Superior, implemented a novel remote learning program in the 1980s to deal with its geographic remoteness, and has also served as a community library and recreational facility. I have added some additional sourcing such that this now passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks to 's fine WP:HEY work, this article is now sourced well, meeting WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep When this was nominated it was a stub with only primary sourcing. It's now improved into a decent article thanks to . However the sourcing is such that you can make notability arguments which go both ways - it's still reliant on primary sources, but there's a good article from Detroit and some local coverage as well. This is probably the most "neutrally" notable article I've ever come across (because it depends on whether you think some hyper local sources count towards WP:GNG), but given the topic should be completely non-controversial, I'm going to default to a weak keep. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:17, 14 March 2021 (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.