Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Caraway Elementary School (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Caraway Elementary School (2nd nomination)


Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our  verifiablity policy, viz:  The school has been the subject of multiple  non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself.  This article does not appear to present such evidence. Further, quoting from Schools/Arguments, ''Granting inclusion to non-noteworthy schools is like handing students a passing grade just for showing up to class. Minimal standards encourage minimal accomplishment.'' Which seems to be exactly the case here. Puerto De La Cruz 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It has no claim of notability. It is mentioned in the article for the school district, and that mention could be expanded. Edison 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, useful content. Nominating this many articles in one go is just silly as it makes it hard to accurately assess every single one of them.  JYolkowski // talk 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are over a hundred articles nominated for deletion every day. You don't have to !vote in the ones that you don't feel that you have time to accurately assess.  Puerto De La Cruz 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. Assessing articles can take hours to dig up sources, expand the article, etc.  I don't have 30 hours a day to fix all of the articles you've nominated.  Don't nominate so many at one time, it's disruptive.  JYolkowski // talk 15:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with Puerto on this one. I'm not sure how this argument could possibly apply in any context. -- Kicking222 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No asserted notability of any kind, aside from having a principal die (and my elementary school's principal died when I was in eighth grade, so that's not exactly unique). -- Kicking222 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Kicking222. Shimeru 06:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Kicking. JoshuaZ 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article. Arbusto 02:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Last nomination was months or years ago. Reconsideration is not inappropriate. Shimeru 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge do not keep. Vegaswikian 00:52, 15 November 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.