Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linwood Elementary School (Kansas)


 * 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 - this evaluation explicitly devalues the discussion before TerrierFan's expansion - before that, there was a probably "delete as non-notable" dominant thought position, now notability appears to be established. Cheers, Wily D 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Linwood Elementary School (Kansas)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Stub elementary school article with no assertion of notability. Nyttend 01:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - It may be a stub, however educational institutions aren't exactly expendable. WP isn't paper. --Mnemnoch 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no assertion or verification of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of schools, and notability is not assumed for anything. VanTucky  (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Come on, it's a school. It's not promoting any business or spreading any lies. It's probably very important and notable inside it's community, and educational institutions are generally landmarks and meeting grounds. I know this is going against about four or five arguments to avoid by now, but there's tons and tons of other schools with articles, that are probably even less notable. --L ucid 02:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Schools are not, contrary to what some think, automatically notable per any policy. This article needs verification of notability in reliable, independent sources just like any other. Just because it is, in your opinion, not doing any harm, does not mean that we just assume notability and forget the very pillars of Wikipedia. The vast majority of school articles that have been vetted through AFD were kept because they passed WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean this should be kept. VanTucky  (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep-Surely a place of learning is notable enough. If it qualifies as a stub, there is room for improvement but this is no reason to delete. Keep & impprove! --Bennyboyz3000 03:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is, Bennyboyz, that in my opinion it doesn't qualify as a stub. There's widespread precedent for deletion of average elementary school articles.  Nyttend 03:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is analogous to Articles for deletion/Flanders Elementary School. And there have been several other deletions and redirects like these. The idea that notability for schools is automatic or assumed is not a reasonable one. VanTucky  (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Non-notable elementary school. Just because it exists does not mean it should have a page on Wikipedia. --Hdt83 Chat 04:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is an elementary school and they're not inherently notable and this has not received significant coverage either Corpx 05:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability. Eusebeus 08:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Directory information only, and only 2 sentences of it. Directory information alone is not notable. DGG (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have now added sourced, encyclopaedic information. TerriersFan 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment overcrowding and drug problems are, sadly, not notable for U.S. schools (even elementary). It's so widespread as to almost be a given. VanTucky  (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - we keep on meeting WP:N that requires multiple sources that this article now has. TerriersFan 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But neither citation is significantly covering the school; rather they are about the children (for the drug incident) and the district as a whole (for the other). These are both trivial mentions, and two such cites from a local paper are not enough to lend notability. VanTucky  (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - both references make significant reference to the school. Buildings+faculty+children=school so references to children are fine. Further, anyone coming here looking for information on the school is likely to be interested and not consider the matters trivial; we are writing an encyclopaedia for people to read after all. TerriersFan 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That last argument has been soundly debunked over and over again, read WP:ATA for pete's sake. Significant coverage is not a synthesis process, it's black and white. Do sources focus solely and specifically on the school as a whole, not about notable people or events that happen to be related to the school? In this case, they do not. Those sources do not meet WP:N. VanTucky  (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that assertion because Notability is cumulative. It is common to merge content about the building, faculty, student body and alumni of a school into a single article. Notability applies to the merged content as a whole. This is why merging topics is suggested in WP:N. Dhaluza 10:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   —TerriersFan 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Expand into an article covering Wichita Public Schools (alternately Wichita USD 259 unsure of Kansas naming conventions), not enough notability by self, but would make good subsection of larger more inclusive article. Chris 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per TerriersFan, passes WP:N with multiple reliable sources about the subject. A merge would be fine as well.  Burntsauce 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever.-- Hús  ö  nd  01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - an article about two children who took drugs is not notable about a shcool; that is commentary about social problems in the USA. This article is not notable; it is one of thousands of elementary schools in the US. This argument that a school is so important is specious; is not a single human life important? Using the logic of having an article about every school because education is important would also dictate that we need an article about every human that has ever lived because life is important. We could give their name, the fact that they are human, and an address...every now and again we throw in a comment that some of them took drugs. Viola, we now have an encyclopedia with billions of senseless, little articles that say nothing more than a school/human exists. Let's all read WP:PILLARS and WP:WIN again. This is not the place for a community to gain brownie buttons because they have an article. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - The merged topics do meet WP:N as a whole because they cite multiple RS, so there is no need to delete. Stub should be expanded, but WP will hopefully be around for a long time, so we can be patient. Dhaluza 10:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Expand into what? What is the objective we are trying to achieve. How does it meet WP:N? It was rated by Great Schools; it got a 2 out of 10. This is a rating group, it is supposed to name all schools, there is no notability by being named, and you can not get too much worse. A newspaper article about the school district that simply mentions the school's name is not a source for notability. These sources may verify the school's existence, but does not provide notability. An article about children taking crack is a social commentary and has nothing to do with the school; thus no notability. Just saying it meets WP:N is not could enough; please explain exactly how it meets this standard? It fails every standard set up for notability policy. When we overlook our own policies because we "like" or we are passionate about a subject, we have failed as editors.--Storm Rider (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * keep please and continue expansions this is an important school to the community yuckfoo 17:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into article new article covering Wichita Public Schools. Does contain sources and attempts to establish notability, but this school is probably not notable enough on its own; an article with a wider scope would help solve that. Camaron1 | Chris 12:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wichita Public Schools or Delete. So a teacher did not have a classroom.  Do we list every school that has this problem?  Bottom line there is no notably for the school.  Vegaswikian 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not uniqueness. There are dozens of bands with no creativity at all that are notable enough for articles, and plenty that have a great sound that get db-band every day. Notability is being covered by reliable sources, which this has --L ucid 08:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bennyboyz3000 and Burntsauce. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 08:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep view - digging around a bit shows that this school was only opened in 2004 but replaced a previous school of the same name. Taking both schools together, as is normal, there are tons of references and controversies that can be included. Already the article meets Wikipedia policy so deleting it seems illogical. Bridgeplayer 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the modifications made by Terriers Fan, or merge said changes into an existing article about the surrounding community or school district. Yamaguchi先生 04:12, 17 August 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.