Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakelands Park Middle 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 delete. Despite the rewrite, the concerns of the nominator were not addressed. Inclusion isn't an indicator of notability. --Core desat  05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lakelands Park Middle School

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

PROD contested by WAILONG. Excluding its rather large size, there's nothing unusual at this newly-founded school to adhere the criteria of the proposed WP:SCHOOL. All of the necessary information on schools in the county is already found on Montgomery County Public Schools.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC) DVIYCR 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely non-notable middle school. Soltak | Talk 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Soltak &gt;Kamope&lt;   Talk  ·  Sign Here  18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep because what makes this different than any of these schools here?
 * The most of them assert notability, this one doesn't.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   -- Noroton 16:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whilst the article is informative, it neither asserts notability of the school, nor provides any evidence to support such a claim. Notability is not the same thing as verifiability. WMMartin 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have rewritten the article. This is a new school and undoubtedly 'notable' events will occur over future years. Meanwhile, large schools such as this have inherent notability due to their significant place in the community and readers coming to Wikipedia can rightly expect to find an article on them. TerriersFan 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it might someday be notable doesn't mean it should have an article today. Let's have a nice for instance: I am currently working on a book with a couple colleagues about the impact of the Vice Presidency on Presidential elections. This book will most likely be nothing more than a nice addition to my CV and a required text in a couple courses at my home University. If, however, it becomes wildly popular and I go on the lecture circuit, both myself and the book would probably be notable enough for an article. Right now, I'm not. I guess the basic point is this: Everything, and I do mean everything has the potential to be notable. It doesn't get written about, however, until it actually is notable. Soltak | Talk 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is now a perfectly decent stub that will be of interest to anyone coming to it for information on the school. That is a far better reason to keep the article than some abstract (and undefined) concept of notability. TerriersFan 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely ignoring my stunningly persuasive argument is quite a crafty tactic. Notability is neither abstract nor undefined, see WP:N. In addition, hopes and dreams that someone will find an article about a non-notable middle school helpful isn't a Wikipedia policy. Notability is. Soltak | Talk 00:22, 27 February 2007 (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.