Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moulton-Udell High School (2nd nomination)


 * 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. there appears to be relative consensus that while not all sourcing is GNG compliant, enough is to make the school notable. Note, this does not preclude a merger if consensus emerges that it makes sense to cover the school within the town. Just that there's no consensus at all to delete the information. Star  Mississippi  03:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Moulton-Udell High School
AfDs for this article:


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

WP:MILL. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 22:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools,  and Iowa. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Moulton, Iowa. This school has 86 students in grades 7-12, so on average about 15 students per grade. This is just not enough to justify a free standing article. Yes I was able to find this US News and World Report profile, but I do not think this is enough on its own to have a seperate article, and with this size I think summarizing the year created, the current enrollemtn and anything else we feel needs to be noted in the larger article on the place it is located would be a better choice, and allow us to focus our resources on building more articles that are benefitical to all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. While offers an interesting position favoring the conservation of WP resources, his stance is irrelevant to the question of notability requirements, which make no mention of the size of a school in either WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Notability rests on what has been published about a school, not the size of its enrollment. I've added multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources, meeting GNG requirements. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you add everything you could find or did you judge its relevance? To my opinion parts of your additions are irrelevant. The Banner  talk 09:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I did debate whether to include the two incidents in the "Challenges" section, but having lived and attended school in the small town of Stanhope, Iowa I know how huge those stories must have been to the residents of the towns of Moulton and Udell. I defer to the judgment of other editors whether those few sentences should remain in the interests of WP:NPOV.
 * My question for you: how did you not acknowledge any of the WP:RS now included in the article during your WP:BEFORE search? Was it a failure of judgment or failure of an adequate search? — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By and large I agree with the stance of mr. Lambert. But not every detail is relevant. The Banner  talk 16:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, the KTVO-source is an interview with the school principal, so not independent. The source about the rural decline does mention the school in the text at all. Just that the journalist writing the article is a former student there. Nothing in-depth about the school. Career days? Every school has them. Nothing notable in that. The Banner  talk 16:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles are usually built both with sources that demonstre notability, and also with reliable sources that verify facts, but which may give context (like the trend especially in mid-western US rural communities reported in the article about rural declining enrollments) or may verify facts per WP:V. Every source needs to meet WP:RS; however, some sources demonstrate verifiability, but not WP:N. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I quickly found a few more sources and added, appears to meet WP:GNG.---Milowent • hasspoken  21:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional sources! I've posted a source analysis table on the article's talk page. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice. I could certainly find many more articles, I know from other AfDs such as Articles for deletion/Poplar, Iowa and Articles for deletion/Lycurgus, Iowa that Iowa has decent digital archives of old newspapers, so i just quickly plucked some.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Significant coverage criterion]]: What part of that criterion reflects your judgment that none of the sources are "Useful to establish notability"? — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment:, thanks for adding a column to the talk page table with your responses. Because you indicated you could not access Oskaloosa News, I added the relevant text from that source to the quote parameter of that reference in the article. Since we agree that sources #5, 6, and 11-14 do not contribute to notability, I suspect our disagreement rests on whether the 8 remaining sources meet the [[WP:SIGCOV|
 * Statistics, trivial mentions (like a journalist writing an article being a former student but without the school being mentioned in the text of the article) and one-off incidents do not confer any notability. They only illustrate. The Banner  talk 16:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. But not all of the sources provided fit into those categories. The fact that some do does not take away from the usefulness of the others. Jacona (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I indicated with the little red "x" mark in the "Meets Notability criteria" colum that I agree that sources #6, 12, and 13 that User:The Banner refers to do not contribute to GNG. Some sources contribute to contex, and some contribute to verifiability of facts, and not all sources must count toward notability.  I disagree about source #1 NCES ("statistics") which does meet the four criteria that constitute notability, and I would point out that the USA Today reference favored by John Pack Lambert appears to be derived from the NCES source. But it doesn't matter, because even without considering NCES source, seven more sources meet all four criteria for GNG. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.