Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mater Dolorosa Catholic School (South San Francisco)


 * 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. I am reverting my mistake in reading the concencus per Epeefleche's post on my talk page Guerillero &#124; My Talk  00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mater Dolorosa Catholic School (South San Francisco)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

K-8 school Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, and may be (the article says it is) defunct. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect: per consensus that these type of schools are non-notable. Personally, I'd have just carried out the merge/redirect as there's a strong consensus that redirect to a city, parish, school district or diocese is the way to go, and redirects/mergers don't require consensus anyway  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, no need for a redirect. Muni pages, with very few exceptions, only list open private primary schools. tedder (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Google search confirms the school is closed. (The appropriate redirect would have been to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco.) BTW I concur with Purplebackback that the appropriate action would have been to simply carry out these non-controversial redirects, rather than hauling them to AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-controversial? I've seen fair share of controversy at these AfDs, over the last 150 or so.  See, for example, Articles for deletion/Bearwood Primary School (2nd nomination). And even here you and Purple have different views as to what should be done, as you suggested a delete and he suggested redirect (or redirect/merge), and from what I've seen we do not have a consistent consensus between those alternatives.  --Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect PurpleBackPack did not notice that the school is closed. If it was an active school, my recommendation would have been the same as his. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that policy supports different treatment, based on whether the school is active or not. And btw -- to the extent that any AfD discussion is non-controversial, it can be snow closed ... perhaps we will see more of those.  That would be a good turn of events.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen a discussion of how to handle a closed primary/middle school - whether to redirect or delete. I will be interested to see what the conclusion is here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not the time to search for it, but do have a recollection of seeing a statement somewhere to the effect that the fact that a school (or organization) is closed is not a factor; the subject is either notable or not, based on existing RS refs et al, and notability is not contingent on future existence any more than a living person would be considered more notable than a dead one.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that is true when it comes to "delete or keep". But the discussion here is more about "delete or merge". In the latter decision, what is important is if any text belongs on wikipedia about this school. tedder (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't see merge as an option, as there is zero RS-sourced content in the article as it stands to even consider merging.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but WP:BEFORE says a search should be done before nomination; certainly there's enough to say it exists, which is what makes merge an option. tedder (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that, were there any RS-sourced content to consider merging, it would have been an option.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have the "time" to put in an expected level of consideration before submitting an AfD but you have the time to submit this many AfD's? This is a problem. No wonder you're putting through nominations like Articles_for_deletion/Huaian_Foreign_Language_School where you didn't properly consider that the article needs a rewrite. You need to pay more attention. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That, of course, is not what I said. Please stop putting words in my mouth, that I did not say.  As top the AfDs, I've put in a high level of consideration, as borne out by the high level of community consensus on them.  But the focus here is on this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You said that you don't have time to search for procedures on how to deal with redirect/merge-ing school articles. I've also done a cursory look through your contributions, as I have previously stated, and I'm not seeing too many posts to school talk pages or rewriting of school articles. I'll assume good faith that you are searching for RS's, but you seem to have slipped at least once (Articles_for_deletion/St_Joseph's_School,_Oamaru) and you've also proven in at least one other of your AfD's that you are considering the possibility that an article may be badly written (Articles_for_deletion/Huaian_Foreign_Language_School). AfD is the step in a process, not the one and only solution. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please quote precisely what I said.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No school, no sources, so nothing to keep. Night of the Big Wind  talk  01:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. As this school appears not  to  exist, a redirect  would not  be appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The school seems to exist . &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep although this may be a minority viewpoint I believe that the deletionists are being foolhardy in their blind opposition to schools articles. Every school office I have been to has dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall. This clearly meets GNG as they are multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore based on NRVE the only decision should be keep. Some schools are lucky enough to have these sources on google news but many older and in fact more historically notable ones do not and that is a shame. Microfilm is just as important. Based on this experience it should be clear that all schools are notable. Also at the very least this school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article, not deleted outright. This preserves the edit history for when sources are found. It should also be noted that this is part of a mass nomination and that should be frowned upon by the community as it shows there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination. I don't think even a PROD was tried first here. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment above that the school "seems to exist", and the webpage: I think that may be an obsolete webpage. The webpage for the parish says nothing about a school. I just called the phone number listed on your school webpage, and the recording which answers it is for this program: Mater Dolorosa - Faith Formation, Religious Education (CFF), Children & Youth, which appears to be a one-hour-a-week program of religious education. I suspect the article is correct and the K-8 school is closed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear for COI purposes, I'm not connected to the school at all in any way. In fact, I'm in a different country.
 * That being said, I don't understand who would still be paying for a website if the school is defunct. If the school is closed, then I'll add to my comment above a !vote of Redirect/Merge.
 * My comments regarding Epeefleche's not committing to any part of the deletion process (except for the "click XFD button") still stand and still of great concern to me. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As the saying goes, nothing ever dies on the internet. In other words, the fact that we can see this webpage does not necessarily mean that it is an active page someone is paying for. Pages get mirrored and archived and waybacked - nothing is ever really quite gone. (Try looking up your own old address, or a restaurant that closed a year or two ago.) I'm more inclined to trust the phone message - and the fact that the (currently active) parish website doesn't mention a school. --MelanieN (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2012 (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.