Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grasmere 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 of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話| + |投稿記録|メール) 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Grasmere Elementary School
Elementary Schools are not notable. --Danielrocks123 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - No pretence at notability.--BlueValour 16:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following schools for deletion for the same reason. --Danielrocks123 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Amy Woodland Elementary School
 * Gordon Terrace Elementary School
 * Highlands Elementary School
 * Pinewood Elementary School
 * Kootenay Orchards Elementary School
 * Isabella Dicken Elementary School
 * Max Turyk Elementary School
 * Frank J Mitchell Elementary School
 * Mountain View Elementary School


 * Keep these pages are being created and will be expanded as part of the WikiProject Education in Canada Wakemp 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as part of an ongoing and very active effort in WikiProject Education in Canada. --Stephane Charette 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent. -- Usgnus 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ardenn  17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, schools are notable per precedent. hateless 18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, precedent may mean these won't be deleted but it doesn't make them notable. School articles like this are the shame of Wikipedia. Our critics point at them, and their endless trivialities about the most utterly banal things, and their endless duplication of "facts" which are the same for every one of millions of identical schools across the world, as evidence that Wikipedia is good only for children. They are essentially wrecking our dreams of gaining some credibility as a serious encyclopedia. Do you see hundreds of articles about individual elementary schools in Britannica or Encarta? Nope. Think there could be a reason for that? Hmmm, I wonder. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: But note that this is what will eventually make Wikipedia the place of reference people go to instead of Britannica and Encarta that don't have the manpower to create such articles. Our goal is not to become Encarta. --Stephane Charette 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless an elementary school has a claim to fame it doesn't need an article here. They are often carbon copies of each other with little if anything to set them apart. --Crossmr 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: note that some schools, like Kootenay Orchards Elementary School, are listed above but don't carry any banner identifying them or linking them to this discussion page. --Stephane Charette 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Kootenay Orchards Elementary School has now been tagged. --Danielrocks123 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per precedent. Stu   ’Bout ye!  19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all as per Wakemp and Schools/Arguments. Mass-nominations such as these are generally not helpful.  Silensor 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete profoundly non-notable (see comments at Annieville below). Opabinia regalis 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all per Silensor. --Myles Long 20:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please all of these schools are notable and per precedent Yuckfoo 22:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom and Haeleth. WP:SCHOOL did not succeed and schools are not inherently notable. There may be instances of notability or other reasons why a school might be encyclopedic, but otherwise this just begins to resemble the yellow pages under "School". Agent 86 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen a number of these assertions that the rejection of the proposal favoured deletionism, but it is just not true.WP:SCHOOL did not succeed because it reached a condition which was a default keep all (because any school nominated was likely to be improved to meet the minimal criteria during the process) yet that still wasn't a fair reflection of the strong inclusionist feeling. CalJW 05:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep These articles about elementary schools are important, and cant just be thought of as not notable Canadianshoper 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all All of these are clearly notable (if the nominator doesn't have to provide more detail, why should I?). CalJW 05:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Either merge into School District 5 Southeast Kootenay or weak keep and expand. I continue my belief that elementary/middle schools' claim to notability is weaker than that of high schools, but I also prefer more info than just a list entry with no further info. BryanG(talk) 06:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge the stubs if feasible. Past precedent is generally not to delete schools. Also, the nomination rationale ("not notable") is not very helpful. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the Education Project and other points raised here, along with another murmur of discontent against these block deletion nominations. Plus, the Britannica and Encarta comparisons are not appropriate, as I don't think they are the example that Wikipedia is aiming for. People come here first because they're confident that Wikipedia is more likely to have information on a subject than Encarta or Britannica. --Ckatz 08:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep or merge all Per WP:SCH near consensus back in the day - merges do not require AFD Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep How do we know that there isn't one that's exceptional in here? Check them all? No thanks. Golfcam 17:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a strong precdent to keep school articles and as a whole, they are very notable and of importance.--Auger Martel 11:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Schools are very important to our readers. --JJay 19:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all per endlessly repeated precedent. --Rob 09:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all per JJay. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  05:55, 19 June 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.