Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portage path elementary


 * 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 no consensus. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Portage path elementary
Tagged PROD for 5 days, however, the tag was removed on the last day before an Admin got there. Unfortunately, the editor who removed the tag has not added any new content, or indeed, shown any evidence that the school is notable in any way. Since I can't jut re-list for PROD, I'm bringing it here.}} &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. One sentence school stub. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable secondary sources. We don't compromise notability in this case. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand. This school, like many schools, is undeniably important to its community. --ForbiddenWord 19:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ... and yet, whilst you vote to expand, as the nominator pointed out, you didn't do any work to actually expand it at all. Please stop voting and start doing research. Uncle G 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet, because of my actions, the school (through the work of another editor) has been expanded to a good level. The work of stopping articles from being prematurely deleted is not trivial as you would have me think. I am trying to accurately reflect community consensus, and try to allow school articles be improved rather than deleted, and all that I have to show for it is other editors picking apart my rationale. The above just shows that letting articles exist, rather than deleting them, is valuable. --ForbiddenWord 16:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, it is exceedingly presumptious of you to claim any credit for anything here. You have zero credit here.  You did, and continue to have done, nothing.  You cited no sources.  You provided no content.  The article as currently written could have been as equally created from a redlink as from the 9 words that it contained at the time of nomination.  You aren't improving the encyclopaedia in the slightest, and have contributed nothing at all towards its improvement by your actions here.  You aren't doing any work at all here, trivial or otherwise.  You did zero work here.  In fact, your actions are the direct causes of extra, unnecessary, work.  Had you done any work at all at the time of prodding, the article may not even have been brought to AFD in the first place (per the nomination).  But you didn't do a single iota of work, and hence all of this extra time and effort expent on the parts of other editors, as a consequence of your just doing nothing, has resulted. Uncle G 15:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero google hits, importance to community is not an assetion of notability and the entire article is a single sentence asserting that the school exists and is an elementary school. JoshuaZ 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I obtained rather more than zero, as you can see. Uncle G 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable elementary school. DCEdwards1966 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable elementary school. TheRanger 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails to assert any notability, fails proposed WP:SCHOOLS, does not cite any sources and therefore fails WP:V. Akradecki 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - now that's how to salvage an article. ForbiddenWord: take a lesson from this - you don't save articles by falsely claiming that there's consensus, or by intimidating editors by saying that their noms are useless. You do it by doing the hard work, the research to actually make the article better. You do that, and then folks like me will change our "votes". Akradecki 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is more than a sentence now, and cites five sources: a government report, a database of the school's demographics and test scores, and three separate magazine/news feature articles about this particular school's educational/development programmes and use of computers &mdash; all of which are from sources independent of the school itself. It even links to more source material not used by the article.  Per the references and further reading sections of the article (q.v.), it satisfies the primary criterion of WP:SCHOOL. Keep. Uncle G 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Will the closing admin please rename the article to conform the title to proper use of caps? Thanks! Akradecki 04:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as notability has not been demonstrated. I don't think that any of the sources provided by Uncle G show notability.  First, as to the government report: Generally, the existence of non-trivial third-party coverage of a subject shows notability of that subject because it shows that the outside world (represented by the publishers of the source) deems the subject notable.  However, a government report about a school is not published because anyone deems the school notable, it's published because government schools are accountable to the public.  So a government report does not show notability.  (Yes, this conclusion is contrary to WP:SCHOOL, which explicitly blesses "schools inspection agencies," but WP:SCHOOL does not enjoy consensus approval.)  Second, as to the database of the school's demographics and test scores: this is a trivial source, like similar reports on local restaurants.  Third, as to the source titled "Teaching Technology To Kids": that report is not, primarily, about this school, which merely serves as an example (along with at least one other) of a school using technology in the classroom.  The existence of that report doesn't show notability of the school, it shows notability of the topic of Instructional technology, which as you can see we have an article on already.  Fourth, the other two sources (that I can access--the link to the third is down) are local and as such are not sufficient to show notability (otherwise we'd be keeping lots of articles about local businesses, which are featured in local papers all the time).  Pan Dan 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge &mdash; This article can be used as a seed for the Akron City School District. Otherwise keep. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hey, now there's an idea I could agree with. School districts are notable. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 08:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to school district. No evidence of this being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial references in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy 09:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a result of the excellent expansion work by Uncle G. Silensor 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please per edits made by uncle g this appears notable Yuckfoo 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per PanDan. Just an elementary school that uses computers. Catchpole 11:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Uncle G's rewrite.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 06:56, 25 October 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.