Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montcrest 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 per WP:N and WP:CORP. The location of something does not confer notability to it, and the references do not vouch for notability (a motivational speaker speaking somewhere does not make it notable, especially if he himself is not notable, and he spoke at other schools in the same week). Also, as a private school, WP:CORP becomes a factor, and the article and the keep arguments do not make any attempt to address it. --Core desat 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Montcrest School


Non-notable elementary school, with no assertion of notability - as such, fails WP:SCHOOL. –- kungming·  2  (Talk)  17:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No assertion of notability.-- Hús  ö  nd  21:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to List of educational institutions in Toronto. It should really go without saying that schools are notable, insofar as they are a core institution of a human community.  On the other hand, the potential for expansion appears to be limited.  -- Visviva 13:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that most middle and secondary schools are notable, but most elementary schools, I think, are not. It's not necessarily the case that all schools are inherently notable. –- kungming·  2

(Talk) | Review 18:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or at worst merge Albatross2147 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Any reason for that opinion? JoshuaZ 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There isn't anything in the current article that asserts notability; but if you can find reliable sources, then add to it. --SunStar Net 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you're admitting that the article does not asrt notability and does not contain reliable sources, and you're arguing to keep it? -- Kicking222 14:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles about cities, towns and villages, no matter how tiny, don't have to assert notability. All they have to do is assert that the hamlet exists. Some of us feel that the logical implication is that municipal functions of these towns - such as schools - are extended the same privilege. Until a definite policy or guideline exists, it means neither deletionists nor inclusionists are right or wrong - yet. But the lack of a guideline means there is no basis for calling for this article's deletion. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of us, on the other hand, feel that "cities, towns, and villages" should have to assert some manner of notability, same as everything else does (though for incorporated cities and larger towns, this wouldn't be very hard). But there are tons of "municipal functions and locations"-if we broadly exempt that, we run the risk of having "Office 22G in the municipal courthouse of Noplace, Nowhere", so long as something confirms its existence. Seraphimblade 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Cities, towns, and villages do assert some manner of notability; they are notable by virtue of being permanent, distinct human communities; likewise, independent countries are notable by virtue of being independent countries (or do they need to assert notability to?). IMO, schools are notable insofar as they are permanent core institutions of permanent human communities.  In most cases, including the present one, "X is a (public/parochial/..) school in Y" is essentially equivalent to saying that "X is a permanent core institution of the permanent human community Y.  It plays a key role in Y's performing the most basic function of human society, viz. education."  How can that not be seen as a claim of notability?  -- Visviva 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Confusing an attribute of the whole with one of its parts. The above claim makes education notable, not every detail of how education occurs is notable. Similarly, fire engines are notable, not every single fire engine is notable. JoshuaZ 02:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comparing fire engines to schools in terms of notability doesn't even come close to making logical sense of any kind. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete can't have every school. Rever e ndG 00:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find anything notable about this school. As far as I can tell this school doesn't even pass the highly inclusive WP:SCHOOLS. (I would not object to instead having a redirect in place). JoshuaZ 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, actually we can have every school if the articles are encyclopedic and the information is verifiable, this article meet both requirements. bbx 09:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, currently the article consists of just a bunch of facts and statistics, and I'm not sure how it needs to be on Wikipedia, as the information is readily available at the school website. I myself am a member of WikiProject Schools, but I'm not sure how this meets WP:SCHOOL yet. Please feel free to correct me. =) –- kungming·  2  (Talk)  17:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to meet WP:SCHOOLS, because WP:SCHOOLS is only a proposed guideline, and one that is not likely to be ratified anytime soon. By your own admission, the article is encyclopedic: "the article consists of just a bunch of facts and statistics". Highfructosecornsyrup 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, that's exactly what makes it non-enclycopedic. Random data points do not an enclyclopedia article make. JoshuaZ 02:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. "Random data points"?? Please. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the argument that schools are inherently unnotable and this one is no exception. Eusebeus 11:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The "argument that schools are inherently unnotable" is not backed up by any Wikipolicy, which is what AfD votes are supposed to be based on. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you have pointed out at other school-related deletions, there is no agreed-upon policy except for WP:N, which implies that NOTHING is itself notable by default, only by its notability within its sphere and its achievements, which as Eusebeus points out, are lacking in this case. --Kuzaar-T-C- 22:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see Eusebeus pointing out any such thing. All I see is "Per the argument that schools are inherently unnotable and this one is no exception". He has no policy/guideline basis for saying this, and you have no policy/guideline basis for defending his having said it. Highfructosecornsyrup 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Entities need to make notability claims to have articles about them. Saying schools are inherently notable makes no more sense than claiming that all people are inherently notable. One needs a very compelling argument to put everything in a given category as notable enough to have its own article. JoshuaZ 02:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with what I just said? (Answer: nothing.) Highfructosecornsyrup 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The article does not assert notability. As it stands, nothing in the article would point to its passage of WP:SCHOOLS3 (nor WP:SCHOOLS, which is considerably more inclusive). -- Kicking222 14:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Failing to pass a guideline/policy that doesn't officially exist yet is no failure at all. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but given that WP:SCHOOLS is highly inclusive failure to pass it is a bit damning. JoshuaZ 02:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The notion that it is "highly inclusive" is your personal opinion. I have my own. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, no assertion of notability, no sources cited at all. Seraphimblade 15:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Substub that makes no claims of its subject's notability, last line looks a lot like spam.  Principal Schoolswatter 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no demonstrable evidence of remarkability or notability. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please or merge to greektown article readers should be able to research this here Yuckfoo 02:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and do not keep. I almost voted delete, but there is some encylopedic material in the article to merge.  Vegaswikian 07:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Visviva.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 09:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Every viable and sourced school is notable. Kukini 15:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive, you will notice that over the past two years a massive community consensus has emerged favoring keeping articles on bona fide schools for which there is verifiable information available. Also, WP:DP explicitly states that an article being a stub is not, in and of itself, reason for deletion.  Finally, at Schools there is a proposed policy in development--I would suggest we hold off on this (and any other school articles anyone may wish to nominate) until that policy is finalized and adopted, unless there is a policy specifically requiring the deletion of the given school--otherwise, we risk removing content that may turn out to be explicitly acceptable according to a broader community consensus. Kukini 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not accurate. Many of those debates have led to "no consensus, defaults to keep" more than anything else. Furthermore, the majority of voices for keeping come from a small set of editors. Finally, not only have occasional schools in the past been deleted but if you look at current trends deletion has picked up massively in the last month or so. It is therefore inaccurate to claim that there is "massive community consensus" (these comments were made by User:JoshuaZ)


 * Keep per above. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:14, 28 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.