Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El rancho charter 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

El rancho charter school
poorly written and poorly formatted article about "the coolest middle school" (to 7th grade). Delete as crufty and unencyclopaedic. Ohconfucius 10:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - doesn't assert notability. MER-C 10:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect a brief summary onto the Orange Unified School District page, per the proposed WP:SCHOOL guidelines. :-) &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the awards, but trim the non-notable fluff. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, embarrassing. Gazpacho 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, which already mentions the school. JYolkowski // talk 22:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, charter school. AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth, charter schools are indeed notable. Bahn Mi 01:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Current version, not per organic growth which is simply a buzzword with no meaning, not due to a general claim that charter schools are notable, not due to WP:SCHOOL which it is far from clear has a consensus at this moment but keeping because getting first 9 years in a row in a state competion is a reasonable claim of notability. (Note that the other possible notability claim that it is one of three middle schools in the county is such a narrowed claim that it does not go to notability). JoshuaZ 02:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC) changing to Delete per discussion with Thivier. JoshuaZ 01:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're entire vote rests on a single fact, which is unverified. I fear, voting based on unsourced "claims of notability" simply encourages even more unsourced claims, which is a very bad thing.  We should be removing, not adding, such unsourced claims.  --Rob 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've looked for a source and haven't been able to find one. However, the claim is by itself notable enough. If others are also unsuccesful in verifying the claim I will move to delete. (If we really run into trouble finding the claim we can always AfD again). JoshuaZ 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I'm more concerened with verifiability than notability, I have removed the claim. --Rob 00:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per JoshuaZ. --Myles Long 20:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm glad someone can give me a good reason for not deleting a [middle] school, rather than the usual "all schools are notable" nonsense. If someone could please reference up the 9 consecutive firsts, I will withdraw the nomination.... Ohconfucius 06:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability in achievements at the state Science Olympiad (9 times) and as a recipient of the California Distinguished School award. The nominator's POV that the article is "poorly written and poorly formatted" are justifications for cleaning up and improving it, not for deleting an article. Furthermore, use of the word "crufty" (definition: anything I dislike and feel doesn't belong here, for which I don't actually need to articulate a valid justification), or any of its variations, is often enough on its own to convince me that an article should be kept, especially when used in the nomination. Alansohn 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools, this school is notable. Silensor 16:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Come on people, don't be afraid of deleting an article, It is non-notable and not very referenced, that means that WP does nor need ir, nor can be sure is true. It is an article against WP:V, WP:REF and possibly WP:NOR —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, a fair claim to notability is made and the subject matter is verifiable. Yamaguchi先生 23:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does somebody have a reliable source for the Science Olympiad claim (I'm sure it must exist, but wouldn't know where to look)?  I don't understand how that makes the topic more, or less, encyclopedic, particularly when an appropriate source isn't cited.  Hopefully, we're not encouraging people to make uncited claims of notability, just so they can avoid deletion.  Its far better to start an article with only easily verified, uncontestable facts first (e.g. name,location,size,grades,etc...), and leave unsourced claims to later, when a proper source is found and cited.  Its my personal preference to simply remove such uncited claims, but I suppose that would cause upset, so I haven't.  p.s.  I note an early version of the article, was quite candid in citing its sources, as "various El Rancho students".  --Rob 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per JoshuaZ. schools with 1,000 students are notable and the article is certainly encyclopedic now, altough it's just a stub. bbx 07:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please the school is notable and verifiable too this is not for clean up Yuckfoo 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A large school. -- Necrothesp 01:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP, this school, like ALL schools, is clearly notable. All that AFDs for schools do is waste everyone involved's time because the deletionist effort fails by default. Schools must be allowed organic expansion and growth. --ForbiddenWord 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It isn't just deletionist who have issues with including all the schools, and saying that since most(note not all) earlier attempts have not gotten the articles deleted is not in fact a keep argument. The claim that all schools are notable is very far from an agreed upon claim. As to "organic growth"- even at least one school inclusionist also considers "organic growth" to be a buzzword with no actual meaning. Making viable arguments is a good thing. JoshuaZ 18:12, 25 September 2006 (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.