Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Springs Elementary School (Ohio)


 * 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 redirect to Clyde-Green Springs Schools. consensus to follow our usual rule here. If this was a test case, it was not well chosen. Some few elementary schools can be notable, but there needs to be some special reason.  DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Green Springs Elementary School (Ohio)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable elementary school should be redirected to school district (Clyde-Green Springs Schools) per norm. An earlier school burned in the late 1800s but this school cannot claim to be historically significant since the site was not used for another school for at least 40 years. The school was built, it's funded, it has a playground, and it has had principals. Nothing showing notability there. The only item of interest is the provision of Chromebooks to the students, and I don't see that as being sufficient for notability. Meters (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The article creator made this comment when creating the article "Do NOT redirect or delete without discussion!!! I made this page as a test to see if people can accept the actual notability of a standalone elementary school article. The 'inherent unnotability' guideline is just a GUIDELINE, not POLICY! Let's see if we can accept articles such as these while still ignoring the guideline and focusing more on the facts." Well, here's your discussion. Meters (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Nowhere near enough to sustain an article. All the sources are local, all the referenced facts are mundane.  Fails WP:ORG, and obviously fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:WPSCH/AG. To top it off, altho not really on point here, it just isn't written very well either.  John from Idegon (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @ User:John from Idegon " It just isn't very well written either. " Are you serious? See WP:NPA. I actually spent a lot of time on this article so that is insulting. I'll have you know that I spent a great deal of time writing my articles on WP when I was into it. I see nothing wrong with the quality of this article aside from its questionable notability. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You wrote an article about an apparently non-notable elementary school as a test. It's irrelevant whether it is well written. It is up for deletion as a non-notable subject. If you think it should be kept then add your Keep and make your case. Meters (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the school district article, merging some of the information about the Chromebook program if desired (if article length is a problem, there's some content in the district article that probably needs to be trimmed down to satisfy WP:BLP). Entertaining the article creator's request, I looked for sources for this as if WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES didn't exist at all. I found some (probably trivial, but still...) history about the school during desegregation... no, wait, that's a different Green Springs Elementary School (in Louisa County, Virgnia, and no longer in service). Aaaand then we're pretty much done, except for the requisite routine coverage that doesn't contribute to notability on any local topic, elementary school or otherwise. The local newspaper's Halloween-season light news story suggesting that the school building is haunted by the ghosts of students from the original 19th century school is about the most interesting, but doesn't get within sight of being appropriate for an encyclopedia article. As an aside, the information in the article as it stands is problematic. The 2010 date in the infobox is apparently solely for the most recent building; the school operated under this name at least as far back as the early 1960s (based on this mention of its former principal in the Congressional Record, and, no, that contributes to the notability of neither the school nor the principal). There's almost certainly some elementary school, somewhere, that can sustain an article on its own merits; this is not that case. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect of course, to the school district article. Other contributors here have explained perfectly what our usual process is for such school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2016 (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.