Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maudrie M. Walton Elementary 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While a minority of participants maintain that GNG has not been met and that the article should thus be merged into an article about its parent district, a clear majority of editors are satisfied by the extent of coverage found and/or find it to be highly indicative of the existence of further usable coverage. signed,Rosguill talk 14:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Maudrie M. Walton Elementary School

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

We don't typically keep elementary schools and the sources listed seem to be WP:ROUTINE in nature p  b  p  20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United States of America,  and Texas.  p  b  p  20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) ;
 * Comment: ROUTINE's definition of "routine" is: "Common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out". It is not every day when PBS, a national US TV channel, makes the school a star of a documentary on school improvement (the other RS is also tied to the school being covered in a documentary). WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there may well be something here. But the existing sources are primary so a secondary source about this is required to demonstrate notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: They are not primary sources. They are secondary: No_original_research states: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."
 * Both newspaper articles are written by journalists affiliated with a newspaper (Matt Frazier, a Star-Telegram staff writer, and Lori Elmore-Moon, a special features writer of the same newspaper.). That makes them secondary, not primary sources.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. They are both reports about the PBS show. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the page states: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" so it would be best to have that happen soon.
 * Anyhow, the page states: "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events." Therefore we can check each article to see if there is some kind of analysis and/or commentary.
 * Source #1 by Frazier: "The documentary has already been broadcast in other markets, and Walton has received congratulatory[...]" and the same source also cites TEA data. Frazier did not only report on what the documentary and people from the school said, but also brought in analysis from other sources.
 * Source #2 by Elmore-Moon: "Kemp played a prominent role in the one-hour documentary" which is analysis on part of Elmore-Moon.
 * Additionally, note this article is actually about a school, and not the documentary itself! (the documentary has its own article at A Tale of Two Schools). Elmore-Moon makes it clear that A Take of Two Schools itself compares and contrasts the two schools it is about.
 * Articles_for_deletion/Lakota_Tech_High_School is an example of an article that has news articles with sufficient analysis to show notability
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * High schools are usually kept and elementary schools are usually deleted, tho p  b  p  04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * PRIMARYNEWS is an explanatory essay, but the point is made in the policy page on OR too, see WP:PRIMARY and particularly follow note d. But it is not just Wikipedia saying this. Newspaper articles are generally primary sources. That is the settled historiographic view. It is how such sources are treated in academia. And note that just a reading of PRIMARYNEWS again indicates that even if you dice these as editorials, they remain primary. The sources are primary. What secondary sources exist about this school?
 * But to pbp I would point out that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has changed although the change is taking a long time to be recognised. Any school must essentially pass the WP:GNG. None are presumed notable but elementary schools can certainly be kept if they are shown to pass GNG. However, if the only sources presented to demonstrate that notability are two primary sources, I'll be !voting delete or redirect per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Even with the change in SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as per AFD, newspapers are treated as secondary: Articles_for_deletion/Hardin_High_School_(Texas) is one example of an AFD outcome. Articles for deletion/Houston Blue (there were academic book reviews, but the newspaper coverage was not discounted) is another. And the nomination at Articles for deletion/Benbrook Middle-High School was withdrawn because of the newspaper coverage I found (which linked the building of the new school to the Benbrook community being dissatisfied with previous schooling options, so yes, these newspaper articles have analysis!). These Wikipedia outcomes say they are secondary. Wikipedia is saying this. But not only is it saying this, but Wikipedia must do this to survive. Here's why:
 * Regardless of whether academics technically, technically treat newspaper articles (that have analysis and explanation) as primary, it is important to note this is a general audiences encyclopedia in which many editors are not immersed in academia. Editing (in most cases) should not be too difficult for, say, the working class ordinary homemaker or a farmer, who are not schooled in academia extensively, to contribute reasonably to a field of interest. Trying to impose high level academia standards will drive away ordinary editors and leave many topics of common interest without a viable path to notability (newspapers are extensively used in notability discussions).
 * There is a reason Nupedia failed and it heeds to remember why.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that participants in another AfD failed to challenge obvious primary sources tells us nothing about Wikipedia policy. The rest of the argument here is not grounded on policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions states: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Precedent matters, and the cases I cited are similar cases.
 * Also academia is not the be all, end all of every case, as User:Jimbo Wales has made clear in this dispute about Hugo Chavez: Talk:Hugo_Chávez/Archive_26 (he felt that the article overall did not have a proper reflection of the issues; some editors heavily relying on academia wrote sections that missed other key aspects). What did Jimbo cite as his rebuttal to the academia sourcing? The answer: Newspapers and magazines.
 * I quote Jimbo: "But it is also perfectly fine and often absolutely necessary to use reliable newspapers and magazines as sources. Bill Clinton came to power nearly 18 years ago, and our article has 210 references, the vast majority of which are from reliable newspapers and magazines." (and Wikipedia instructs editors to rely on secondary sources, and so implicitly they are being treated as secondary here)
 * There are cases like ancient history, aviation science, medicine (especially!), global warming, etc. in which academia does need to be weighted higher, but newspaper articles (so long as they have a level of analysis/explanation, and so long as it is not ROUTINE) are clearly sufficient sourcing and counted as secondary for Wikipedia purposes for school-related articles.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Nom comment: If the argument is that the school might be notable because of the documentary, shouldn't the school just be redirected to the documentary? Again, let me note that elementary schools rarely, if ever, survive AfD. p b  p  04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: As per Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes a non-notable American public school is to redirect to its school district. The reason why I figured this particular school would be an exception was Articles_for_deletion/Pershing_Middle_School_(Houston): an education writer featured Pershing's program in a book, and the coverage in the book was enough for Pershing to have its own Wikipedia article. Similarly, I figured the coverage of Walton in a PBS documentary for its particular program would give it notability for its own article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete (ETA - see below) - My searches have turned up no secondary sources that have significant coverage and are reliable and independent. This page therefore does not meet WP:GNG. There are two primary sources in the article (per discussion above), but these don't establish notability. There are many pages showing in searches, but these are directories, or the school's own materials (not independent). Book searches drew a blank (a couple of trivial mentions but these in directories in any case). No papers either. I am a lttle surprised that a school that was subject to a PBS dcoumentary has no other sourcing but I have found none and the conversation above has turned into something meta, rather than a search for secondary sources. I conclude none will be found. Scholar searches are impacted by the existence of Maudrie M. Walton, an educationalist, who does yield hits, e.g., but not about the school. As this does not meet GNG, there should not be a page, because ultimately there isn't much that can be said about this school. However an ATD is possible, and redirects have been mooted to the school district or to the PBS documentary. I would support a redirect if there were consensus as to where that should point to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - being one of two subject schools of an entire documentary from a highly reliable source like PBS is more than enough to show notability. The news clips that have been recently added are just icing on the cake. I really don't understand why there is a question. The delete !votes just seem to be trying to uphold the generality that elementary schools aren't notable. Generally they aren't. Particularly this one is.  4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Additional input on the later suggestions would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Noticeable school, per the documentary coverage mentioned above. — Maile (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks, Maile, for adding new text and two sources to the page. These too are primary sources (a news report and a release about a book drive), so the article continues to lack any secondary sources at all. Has anyone found any? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I absolutely do not understand your contention that the PBS documentary is not a secondary source. A news report is primary generally as it is only made up of first person observation of an event or thing. A documentary is the video equivalent of a book. It includes both first person observation of the subject, and numerous secondary interviews with experts on the subject and the producer's conclusions about all of it. By your rather unique understanding of what makes a secondary source, I guess I need an example of what would be a secondary source. In my mind, and I don't think I'm alone, having a documentary in which this school is one of two schools the author of the documentary used to prove his thesis is a better showing of notability than the majority of articles on Wikipedia have. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion above is not about the documentary itself, it is about the newspapers, which are primary sources. For some reason we have not cited the documentary itself, nor considered it as a source. We could treat it as a secondary source, although I note that the interviews within it may constitute primary sources, and also not meet the independence criterion. Nevertheless, in general I would be happy to accept the documentary itself as one secondary source. We need multiple secondary sources to meet GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that a documentary is a secondary source, so I suspect this school may be notable. However, this article is quite short, and I notice that the school board's article does not have much information, and this school gets lost there in a long list of schools. For those arguing keep, I wonder if you might consider a redirect and merge up to the school board's article? This seems like a better option than a short standalone on the school - just as easy to find by search, but additionally more discoverable on the school board's article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * ● Keep - The school is notable due to the PBS Documentary. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge to Fort Worth Independent School District per Asilvering's suggestion. I have struck my delete vote in favour of this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: this source is good coverage demonstrating notability for the school.  All other references are weak, but where there is one, there should be more.  The article should be expanded to cover the full history of the school and neighborhood. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep coverage is definitely a step above routine, but I am not sure how much being chosen for a documentary weighs on the notability scale. In any event should be a redirect to Fort Worth Independent School District if not kept as an independent article.  Eluchil404 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – it seems rare that a WP:VERIFIED educational institution is deleted (WP:Notability_(high_schools), though this is not a high school). Sources above present > WP:ROUTINE. TLA  (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2024 (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.