Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Jewett Charter School Coalition


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Mount Jewett Charter School Coalition

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

Highly unencyclopedic and not notable. We don't normally have articles about elementary/primary schools, especially when they were just in the planning stages, and doubly so when plans to build them never actually eventuated. The only reason I'm nominating this for deletion is that there's no good redirect target. I initially thought of redirecting it to Kane Area School District but, even before my steam-cleaning of the district's article in response to long-term disruption, it didn't mention this controversy. Information about it was removed from the article about the borough it's in way back in 2018, because it was obsolete. I was almost tempted to delete this myself under ignore all rules; proposed deletion is too easily reversed for my liking (and the article creator has edited relatively recently), so here I am. Graham 87 14:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools,  and Pennsylvania.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Also fails GNG. 174.212.227.143 (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete — Does not pass WP:GNG. First, primary schools are never/hardly ever notable. Second, a "Coalition" that has been attempting to start a charter school without success for 14 years is even less notable, if that's possible. It's a small-town newsless dustup that died at least ten years ago. Third, the tone fails WP:NPOV, the text appears to be laden with WP:NOR and the prose not even close to encyclopedic. I usually can find something positive in any article, but this one is a trainwreck with not much of a train. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2022 (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.