Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's Community 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 per plenty of precedent and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Children's Community School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

K-6 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) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 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 Van Nuys, Los Angeles where the school is already listed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nominator's own suggestion, 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) 14:25, 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)
 * Lucifer, this definitely is a minority viewpoint of yours, and it is contradicted by the Wikipedia consensus expressed at Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, as you have been told repeatedly. You keep arguing this "all schools are notable" viewpoint even though numerous editors have asked you to stop it. Pasting a lengthy and sometimes inapplicable generic comment into every school discussion does nothing to further the aims of Wikipedia - or your reputation. (Inapplicable because your comment says "diocesan", but this is not a Catholic school.) The argument that "all schools have sources, you just have to look" has been accepted by the Wikipedia community as true for high schools, but not for primary or middle schools. And that is in line with my experience. I always search for sources before recommending a school article for redirect, but it is very rare that I find any news of substance about a primary or middle school. BTW "redirect" is the standard outcome; such schools are almost never deleted outright. "Prod" would be inappropriate because that would result in a deletion rather than a redirect.--MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Lucifer -- I agree with Melanie that your oft-repeated comment has been an oft-rejected one, and does not comport with wp consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the closing administrator will know how to judge this evaluation. Epeefleche, I'm not you, so I don't have to take offense at this denial of good faith, "there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination". Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Drmies -- well, yes, I did have that reaction. But I thought that the overwhelming rejection of the accuser's assertions that this article should be a keep might be embarrassing enough for him that I didn't have to myself rub his nose in it any further.  I did also find it a bit bizarre that he suggested that the outcome here is so clear that this article should have been PRODed, while the accuser's !vote suggests that had he seen such a PROD he would have removed it.  All in all, his comments themselves do more to help a closer evaluate them than any retort by me could have.  I do, of course, appreciate you and others in the community speaking up, as that may help keep conversation at these AfDs at a more civil level, with fewer ad hominem attacks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I figure that you, as an executive of a "mass act of deletionist ideology", might do with a non-templated comment of support. Also, I think you should be redirected to the article of your diocese. Ahem. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 8 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 ] 23:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not pass the GNG, such schools not inherently notable, etc. I have no objection in principle to a redirect, of course. They're cheap, as DGG used to say. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the  template on  the redirect  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 8 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.