Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocker Highlands Elementary 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. GlassCobra 09:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Crocker Highlands Elementary School

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Elementary schools are not notable CholgatalK! 09:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 12:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep given, e.g. a hit from the Oakland Tribune dated 17 April 1929 which appears to non-trivially discuss their architecture (but stuck behind a paywall). cab (talk) 12:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - first of all the nomination lacks any grounds on which to base deletion. Also, in addition to the source above, there are enough sources available to meet WP:N. Following the paralysis of a student caught up in a shooting the school has had significant media coverage, for instance here. Also there has been coverage of a book that the students published, for example here. Further, the school was a pilot for a new staff selection process here and the school has been the focus of efforts to encourage parents to keep their children within the public school system here. TerriersFan (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per TerriersFan, sufficient notability has been demonstrated here. RFerreira (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment some background at Articles for deletion/Crocker Highlands, Oakland, California and Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This nomination may have been made in bad faith, but I don't see how the school passes WP:N or WP:ORG. I fail to see how an single article about routine building works at the school in 1929 constitutes "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". With all respect, TerriersFan is arguing that the school has inherited notability from events in which it only happened to be involved - the articles seem to state that the new hiring policies and ways of encouraging students to stay in the public system were being run out of higher levels of the education system, and I don't see why they're anything other than trivial anyway (education departments are always trialling new ways of doing things - I don't think that Oakland Unified School District principal selection process reforms deserves an article, so why should it be used to justify an article on one of the schools it was first used in?). --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry, but I see this argument as fundamentally flawed. Schools are the sum of their component parts i.e. premises+faculty+students=school. Consequently, references to the components are fully relevant to the whole. Each reference, for example the selection process, do not need to be individually notable only that there are multiple, reliable sources. I would add, by far the majority of elementary and middle schools are nn. If you look at my past recommendations you will find I generally !vote for a merge. However, this school has several interesting sources which is unusual and marks it apart from the majority. TerriersFan (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That seems to be an argument that notability is inherited. Also, you're overlooking the 'significant coverage' part of WP:N. Brief references to the school in articles which are on other topics don't constitute 'signficant coverage' - the definition used for significant coverage is "that sources address the subject directly in detail". If the reference isn't clearly about the school then it shouldn't be counted towards establishing notability for the school. WP:NOT also seems relevant as routine or minor stories in the media don't form sufficent basis for an article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that the sources used to establish notability should give significant coverage (a good amount of detail) about either the school as a whole or one or more important elements of the school. (That's how I interpret "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail" from WP:N "General notability guideline") I wouldn't consider the article about the single third-grade classroom to be significant enough (but something about the entire third grade would be). I consider the article about the principal being selected as significant coverage (the article focused on the new principal). I've just added two more sources, both of which contribute significant coverage. Noroton (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see it as a bad faith nomination, since Crocker Highlands is not as famous as, say, Crocker Bank or Crocker, Betty. However, it's clear that people have located and are continuing to locate information that sets Crocker Highlands apart from other elementary schools. Mandsford (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, school is not notable. Sources are not really about the school, and are of only local interest. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A good effort, but there seems to be in the end nothing actually notable. There's a description of the building, and routine coverage by local papers of new principals, and a student at the school being a victim of a shooting somewhere else entirely.  That's not enough for notability even in the area. DGG (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided, unusual for an elementary school, establish notability and satisfy the Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough reliable sources to establish a verifiable, NPOV, NOR article, which are the inclusion requirements. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: nominator is indefinitely blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per TerriersFan. I would endorse the speedy keep as well, but apparently there are a few folks who agree with the (now blocked) sockpuppet who originated this nomination.  (jarbarf) (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep article has multiple, independent, reliable sources. Notability established. Noroton (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (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.