Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysian 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 per consensus  Keeper    76  22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Elysian Charter School

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

Non-notable school. Prod was removed and a merge was suggested, but the material here is largely trivial and unreferenced so a merge doesn't make much sense as the material isn't viable even in another host article. Mikeblas (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added two references, one from the New York Times. --Eastmain (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure that the article about the kids winning the video award amounts to establishing notability because every school on the planet gets written up for something like that, but the other article might have something to it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that notability has been established. Merge to its district -- or possibly Bank Street College of Education if its status as exemplar of that college's style is important enough to use it as an example for that article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Non-notable school" is a contradiction in terms. Schools are enduring public institutions, and thus are inherently "notable". This one has also been the subject of New York Times reportage. Nuff said. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The wikipedia community has a long tradition of refuting that idea. Schools have been deleted before, so it is far from universal that "non-notable school" is accepted as an axiom here. The same could be said for post offices, village halls, police departments, fire departments, but nowhere does it say that these enduring public institutions are automatically notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, such institutions are very widely documented in WP, along with thousands of other facilities as individual railway stations, which also have their own dedicated articles. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gene, I think you may be misunderstanding. I am aware that many of those institutions have articles.  I was stating that they are not automatically notable.  They need to establish notability.  It seemed that in your first post, you were saying all schools were automatically notable.  That would not be true.  I was not saying that all schools were not notable (I work on many school articles .... I hope some are notable! LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have added a further source and there is another reasonable reference here but I don't have High Beam access to incorporate it. Taken together, WP:ORG is met. TerriersFan (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:ORG states: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The new source has incidental coverage of this school (it is about charter schools in general, not about this one in particular).  The second source is from a Jersey City (?) article, and does not mention the school at all (it may in the rest of the article which we cannot read).  I am not convinced that WP:ORG has been met. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -On the contrary; the new NYT source I have added specifically mentions moving this school into a residential building in what looks a highly unusual if not unique arrangement. The High Beam source specifically deals with the school as can be seen from the Gsearch here. TerriersFan (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as an elementary school. that it occupies a few floors or a residential building is actually quite usual in cities. Deevlopers do this as a public amenity to get zoning benefits.  DGG (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think that 'Delete as an elementary school' is a valid deletion argument. The article has multiple reliable sources which is the claim that needs scrutiny. TerriersFan (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- While the attributes of this elementary school are quite common, the secondary coverage of this one including from the NYT is in-depth, which every elementary school does not have.--Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 18 July 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.