Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle 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 as WP:N. Independent and reliable sources are available. Non admin closure NAHID 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Carson Middle School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable middle school - merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable Middle School.  See Notability (schools).  Malinaccier (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   --  Double Blue  (Talk) 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There appear to be some interesting articles on google news but I don't have access. Double Blue  (Talk) 01:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a free High Beam 7 day trial :-) TerriersFan (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Article already has multiple, reliable, independent sourcing, therefore meets WP:N. Calling it "nonnotable" is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and in an obvious way.Noroton (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: The news article about food tampering isn't notable (here, though perhaps on an article about food tampering), but being one of a small number of "Schools to Watch" is presumably notable. Without more research I'm not sure, but I lean to erring on the side of keeping the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a well written article on a significant school. I have access to High Beam and there are plenty of substantial sources to easily meet WP:N. For example, , , , , , , etc TerriersFan (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Article makes weak claims of notability as it currently stands. As additional sources are added, I will reconsider my vote. Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, we gotta respect the sourcing. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; most of the article is completely OR and almost first-person. The food tampering incident is the only issue of notability and in my opinion, given the lack of any other issue, it should have its own article and not be establish this school one.Epthorn (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. TerriersFan has shown several news articles with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Double Blue  (Talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (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.