Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roseville area middle 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 no consensus. Cleanup and/or merging appear to be popular compromise options that should be considered. JYolkowski // talk 23:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Roseville area middle school



 * NN middle school. Most edits are vandalism, article is more like a sandbox for the kids. Hús  ö  nd  23:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Some of the content copied directly from here.-- Hús  ö  nd  21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed the offending text. JoshuaZ 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * None of this matterial was copied. It was only edited by kids from the school who wanted an article about it.


 * Delete per nom. I couldn't find any notable aspects of the school on Google. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. -- Kicking222 00:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Has no non-trivial indepedent sources so it hits WP:V problems beyond being a directory stub. Even past that it has no notable alumni, no teams or clubs that have performed at a notable level and no notable staff. I am able to find absolutely nothing notable about this school. I won't cite WP:SCHOOLS3 because that might look too much like me plugging my own standard so I will instead simply point out that it even fails the generous WP:SCHOOLS. JoshuaZ 01:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per WP:SPCHOOLS3. Not much to merge atm, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. Kappa 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Merge/Redirect Considering the article is barely a week-old, it's off to a pretty good start. Way too soon to start consideration of deletion. That it's a vandalism target is justification to block the vandal or sprotect, not to delete. In the vent that there is not adequate support to keep, information should be merged to Little Canada, Minnesota. Deletion is destruction. There is no valid reason for a straight delete if there is a reasonable target for a merge. Alansohn 06:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge if it is notable enough for that (well, just mention it on Roseville, Minnesota and be done with it), otherwise delete. No reason apparent to have an individual article for this non notable school.Fram 09:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * KeepThere are several kids and teachers who know about this page and have edited it to tell about the school.This page should be kept. And Yes there are notable teachers here. Mrs. Margot Olson won an Honarble mention in Disney's teacher awards. The morning choir has performed at state conventions to before. Despite recent vandalism this page should be kept. 1 Chameleon 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)1 Chameleon
 * I don't know who vandalized it but if I catch Lighthouse Viking... But some of the edits were true. Like the current play is "Hey! Nice Shoes."
 * Note this was 1 Chameleon's third edit on Wikipedia, the other two being to the nominated article.-- Hús  ö  nd  21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

KEEP! THE PEOPLE OF RAMS NEED THIS!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.115.105 (talk • contribs) if you delete this page you should also delete the Roseville High School PAge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.1.1 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete not notable. We delete failed congressional canidates with more news sources than this. Arbusto 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable school of local interest only. D e nni &#9775;  23:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "All of this information comes from the RAMS website, planner and school." Nice when an article tells us straight out that no independent sources are being used.  Without independent sources, there is no hope of satisfying both the WP:V and WP:NPOV sources at the same time - and no matter which it fails, deletion is the right answer.  Those that advocate merging should follow the spirit of sofixit and just do it, merging only verified material of course.  GRBerry 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete do not keep per above discussions lacks notability. Vegaswikian 01:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge as per Alansohn. Mark complaints and identify things that need improved or fixing, see if it can be salvaged, or merge.  Deletion is an oversevere response for this article, inmo, and should be a recourse after discussion is fruitless and merging won't work.Riverbend 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep or merge this one might be a better option but no need to erase this since it is verifiable Yuckfoo 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 01:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Keep per Alansohn. That it's a vandalism target is no reason to delete. bbx 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep since some assertions of notability are made within the article. Many different type of articles are targeted for vandalism due to the nature of our open editing environment, this alone is never a reason for deletion.  Yamaguchi先生 22:11, 14 November 2006
 * 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.