Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooper Middle School (California)


 * 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   merge to Fresno Unified School District. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 23:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Cooper Middle School (California)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Decently-sourced article, but it's a primary school with no reliable sources to indicate a rationale for encyclopedic merit. I propose this be merged/redirected to Fresno Unified School District. (in fact, I've tried doing so and it was reverted, hence the Article for Discussion/Deletion) tedder (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge and redirect Normally, we keep and improve all articles about high schools and secondary schools that give completion diplomas. Normally, we delete (merging and redirecting their useful content) articles about elementary schools and middle schools, unless there is something truly distinctive about the school, as compared to similar schools.  See WP:HIGHSCHOOL for guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)and  midle schools
 * Merge and redirect to school district article (USA), or locality (other areas) as per standard procedure for primary and middle schools. --Kudpung (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the article. I edited the article to address Tedder's concerns. The school is documented as being a unique school in the State of California.BrianRiley (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article still does not clearly demonstrate why it is particularly notable. Peripheral notabilities are not transferable, and the article contains at  least  50% irrelevant  material for any Wikipedia school  page. While those  alone are not reasons for deletion, it will  demonstrate the amount of material left  for merging. With all due respect, I would strongly suggest that you now take a moment to read up on our general guidelines for using  edit summaries (which  make debates like this a lot easier), article creation, then everything  in WP:WPSCH and WP:SCH/AG. Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Kudpung: Please read the section about the special state law that was passed specifically for Cooper in order for a special after-school program to be created. The article referenced clearly states that the school is unique. This reason alone is enough to provide sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia standards. BrianRiley (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's what you say Brian;) According to  my dictionary unique ≠ notable. Let's now see how the debate concludes. Kudpung (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was following up on Cullen328's comment above ("unless there is something truly distinctive about the school, as compared to similar schools"). Surely having a state law written specifically for Cooper-- a state law that specifically mentions Cooper Middle School in the text of the law that the purpose of the law is to set up a special program specifically at Cooper Middle School --surely that makes Cooper "truly distinctive" and notable. So far no one in this discussion has cited a specific sentence in a Wikipedia policy BrianRiley (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect: To appropriate district/area article. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 14:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Possibly notable. The school does seem to have gotten more than the usual amount of news coverage, primarily from the Fresno Bee, which is regional and a Reliable Source. It would help if more of the article's references were linked to an online version (so that people can evaluate the coverage) instead of merely listed. The "special state law" does not appear to be any big deal; it merely granted the school a waiver to allow for a longer school day. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By 'significant' newspaper coverage is meant mainstream newspaers such  as the  Washington Post or the New  York  Times, or at  least coverage in  several  statewide daily  newspapers.  Perhaps several  full  length articles in  the Bee may  count towards notability. As per MelanieN, the 'special law' is no  big  deal.Kudpung (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Beg to differ; it is not necessary that every Wikipedia subject be covered by the New York Times. Mainstream regional papers like the Fresno Bee (which covers the entire San Joaquin valley, an area larger than many states) are fully accepted here as Reliable Sources. See Notability (local interests). -MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Melanie, unfortunately it is not. What  you  are quoting  is not  policy. It's not a guide line, it's not  even a Wikipedia essay. It's a proposal under construction that has no  consensus whatsoever. Nevertheless, if you  are going  to cite Wikipedia, please be sure to  refer accurately to the context. The page states:
 * ...they must meet varying guidelines pertaining to in-depth, on-going, non-trivial coverage.
 * and
 * In order for a local interest to be notable, it must, to a very high standard, have multiple reliable sources independent from the subject that provide in-depth, non-trivial coverage pertaining to the subject itself.
 * None of the press articles about the school fulfills any of these requirements. Kudpung (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When you say "No, Melanie, it is not"... what "it" is that? Are you saying the Fresno Bee is not a reliable source, that regional papers don't count? Because that's what I was talking about. I was just challenging your implication that a subject has to be covered by the Times or the Post to rate a Wikipedia article. In fact there are many, many reliable sources out there meeting the requirement that they be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (I'm quoting from WP:SOURCES, which IS policy.) In your answer you seem to have shifted your focus to talk about the depth of the coverage. That's not what I was arguing. It's perfectly valid to debate how substantive (or not) any given coverage is, and I have admitted that if this school qualifies, it qualifies barely (that's why I said "weak" keep). But if that's your issue with this article, don't confuse us by attacking the sources when you mean to talk about the extent of the coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, I don't think anyone familiar with the Fresno Bee doubts that it a reliable source. The issue here is whether the specific references now in the article or available online establish notability of this topic.  So far, I have seen no convincing evidence that they do, and I've looked. Perhaps you can take an additional look yourself.Cullen328 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. In certain cases it would make more sense to merge and roll up to the school district page, but this isn't one of them.  There is ample material and third party sources to support an independent article here.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to recent comments MelanieN is correct that the Fresno Bee is a reliable source as the newspaper of record, along with its sister paper, the Sacramento Bee for news of the San Joaquin valley.  However, that's beside the point.  The issue is the quality of the references provided in the article, or available by a Google search.  Reference 1 is an announcement that architects were assigned to design ten schools.  That's trivial and is not in-depth treatment of this particular school. References 2 and 3 are directories published by the school district.  They are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability.  Reference 4 is a primary source about the man the school was named after.  He is certainly notable, but schools named after him don't inherit his notability.  Reference 5 is a doctoral dissertation about the history of public education in Fresno.  There is no indication that this source discusses this particular school in depth, and even if it did, it is a primary source.  References 6, 7 and 8 were published long before the school was built and are about the man the school was named after.  They are worthless to establish notability of the school itself.  References 9, 10, 11 and 12 are about a protest conducted by students at the school, however there is no indication that they discuss the school itself in depth.  References 13 and 14 are Fresno Bee articles about state legislation that created an after school program at the school.  Was there in-depth discussion of this specific school in these articles, or was this coverage primarily about the legislation authorizing an unusual after-school program?  The article makes no claim that these articles discuss the school in depth. Worth noting is that the program in question is now optional rather than required.  References 15 and 16 are primary sources about the legislation, mention the school only in passing and therefore do not establish the notability of the school.  The fact that the school is mentioned in the legislation is interesting but not notable unless the school itself has been discussed in depth in independent secondary sources.  Reference 17 is about healthy school food, with no indication that the school itself is discussed in depth.  References 18, 19 and 20 are about an assault on a teacher at the school, with no indication that the school itself was discussed in depth.  References 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are about alumni of the school.  I have no doubt that these references mention the school in passing, but again, there is no indication that these sources discuss the school itself in depth.  If any of these sources do discuss the school in depth, I invite the original author to quote these sources here and in the article.  My conclusion is that these sources do not establish notability by Wikipedia standards, and I have been unable to find other sources that do.  Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cullen.  An  excellent and very accurate analysis. I  would further add that  every  community has a fire station (probably  called a fire department in  the USA), that  gets mentioned in  the local  paper for fighting  a fire or rescuing  cat  from  up  a tree every  week. That does not make the fire department in Fresno any more notable than any of the tens of thousands of other fire stations across the US. Most communities have a primary  school or a middle school... This, at least, is an accredited Wikipedia essay. Kudpung (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cullen, you seem to be missing the pertinent point which is that the state law was specific to Cooper Middle School. It was not a state law that applied generically to all middle schools. If this doesn't meet the criterion for notability, then nothing will. So now let me see if I understand you correctly. You agree that there were articles written about this, but you are claiming that the articles weren't in depth enough? Who is to judge whether an article is in depth enough? Where is the Wikipedia policy that explains whether an article is in depth enough on a certain topic? Show us what the policy is and tell us exactly how you are applying it to this case. And I think you're not stating the facts correctly. Both the Olvera article and the Matlosz article in the Fresno Bee are centered on Cooper as the school involved and it is not true to say that the articles merely mention Cooper Middle School in passing.BrianRiley (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is to judge? We are -  that's what  this debate is for. Consensus (not a !vote count) will be evaluated and assessed by the closing administrator based on the standard accepted practice(s) as required/suggested in  policy and/or guidelines, taking into  account the quality  of the arguments put forward by the participants. Kudpung (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer the question. Which Wikipedia policy references criteria to determine whether a news article makes an in depth reference to a topic? In any event, as I said, both the Olvera article and the Matlosz article are centered on Cooper Middle School. So in that case the Wikipedia article on Cooper should be kept and the contention that the school is not notable is a shaky premise. A state law was written specifically for Cooper Middle School--a state law that created a special program specifically for Cooper Middle School. At least two news articles were written which were centered on Cooper. What other criteria do you need? BrianRiley (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The question doesn't need answering. There can be a hundred fleeting reports in the local or regional press about an insignificant topic but  they  won't  build notability. The sources required by  this encyclopedia  are for confirming  a notability  that  already  exists. The claim(s)  to  notability  of this school  are not  of sufficient encyclopedic importance any  more than if it  were the first school to  receive a city  hall allocation to  buy computers for the classrooms. This sort  of gloss is in  every local paper, all  the time. The Frenso Bee is a respectable paper and a reliable source, it may  cover an area the size of England, and address a population  the size of New Zealand,  but  it  still makes it also the local paper for Fresno  City. Local  hacks in  every  country hang out  around the back  door of the city  hall,  the court  house, and the hospital  to  garner any  snippet to fill the column space - I know, I used to be one before I became a teacher!--Kudpung (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge as suggested by nominator. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I removed the paragraph about the assault. This is not a newspaper or a repository of news articles. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an event that happened at the school. How's it different than a school shooting or other event? It may be undue weight, but it seems encyclopedic. tedder (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO it's undue weight and does not conform to  the strictly neutral kind of article we should have about schools. In  one article about an Australian  school where twice in  its history  students went  on  a mass shoplifting  spree in a local  mall and and the event got the school  closed down for a week, and there were several  press and TV reports, the item  was removed from  the Wikipedia article. We should not  confuse notability  with  notoriety. However, we're off-topic here. Kudpung (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * tedder, if it were a shooting it might be a different matter (with more coverage), but this is a punch and some hairpulling. How is that worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Drmies (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Riley Five Years 13:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Either Delete or Merge and Redirect = Middle Schools without non-trivial sources do not deserve their own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManOne (talk • contribs) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (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.