Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Martin of Tours Catholic 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   redirect to Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Guerillero &#124; My Talk  00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

St. Martin of Tours Catholic School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Usual rationale...K-8 school without a strong notability. Non-controversial, really. Could be merged to Archdiocese of Los Angeles or the article on the parish church  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. Per what I understand is our convention with k-8 schools.  Perhaps we can SNOW this?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, I have yet to walk into a school's office and not see at least a dozen framed newspaper articles that cover the school in depth. Those clearly meet the GNG and should be considered as per NRVE. Therefore it can only be assumed that all schools are notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, our notability guidelines don't contemplate our keeping an article based on "I have yet to walk into a school's office and not see at least a dozen framed newspaper articles that cover the school in depth." And here, of course, we have the convention that has been mentioned in other AfDs in which both of us have participated.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Userfy . The article is a bit more than a stub and, per what Luciferwildcat has said above, it's possible that the article could be expanded to demonstrate the school's notability. If you're stepping forward to get that done, Luciferwildcat, then I'd be happy to help however I can. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * !vote withdrawn, was based on a misreading of another's comment. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, Danjel, general consensus is that K-8 school articles, regardless of length, are non-notable. The "all schools are notable" argument is not based in policy, as Epeefleche notes.  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not the complete picture. If notability of a school can be demonstrated (as Luciferwildcat suggests), then it should be kept. I suggest that, if Luciferwildcat has intimate knowledge of the school, the article be usefied to him/her, and I'll help to expand it to meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjel (talk • contribs)
 * Purple is correct. And -- despite your suggestion to the contrary -- we don't keep articles on the basis of RSs that could -- just maybe, possibly, "who knows?" -- exist.  If that is the basis for your !vote, your !vote should be delete.  You can always re-create the article when you have such RSs in hand, if they do in actuality exist.  As to Lucifer having intimate knowledge of the school -- he suggested nothing of the sort.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The common outcome is  NOT  to delete, it is to merge nonnotable schools to their localities per WP:AfD/Common_outcomes. This has been mentioned to you before... This is a critically serious misunderstanding on your part and colours every single one of the 50 odd AfD's for school articles that you have created in the last however long.
 * Luciferwildcat mentioned that s/he has walked into the school building to see newspaper articles. If not him, then I'm sure someone else (i.e., the article creator) would be happy to take it back. Hence my suggestion that the article be USERFYed until this can be satisfied. I've struck through my keep above to make sure that this it is understood that this is my suggestion. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I think he said a school building, not this school building...  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Fair enough. Then in that case, I'll withdraw my !vote. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dan, for sticking with us through the discussion. As to whether to delete or redirect in such circumstances, both the !votes and the closes at the last 150 or so AfDs of schools of this type have not reflected a consensus as to whether the articles should be redirected or merged or deleted.  They have closed both ways.  Where there has been a consensus is that as a general matter they should not be kept as stand-alone articles.  Thanks again for sticking in the conversation, and reading others' comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to St. Martin of Tours Catholic Church - which does appear to be a notable church. However, I could not find any independent sourcing about the school to establish it as notable per Wikipedia criteria. These discussions are decided, not on the basis that there MIGHT be coverage or OUGHT to be coverage, but on what coverage can actually be found. In this case I found none, using several variations of the school's spelling and quoted phrases. "All schools are notable" as claimed by Luciferwildcat is contrary to Wikipedia consensus. Please understand that "notable" as used here is not a general synonym for "worthwhile"; it is not a value judgment about the subject. It is shorthand for the very precisely defined WP:NOTABILITY criteria for what makes something important enough to be included in this international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * delete or redirect to parent No third party sources proofing notability. Night of the Big Wind  talk  01:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect (blank, and merge any useful  content) t per nominator's own suggestion. Non   notable schools are generally  not  deleted; instead,  as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to  the article about  the school district (USA) or to  the article about  the locality (rest  of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the  on  the redirect  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep although this may be a minority viewpoint I believe that the deletionists are being foolhardy in their blind opposition to schools articles. Every school office I have been to has dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall. This clearly meets GNG as they are multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore based on NRVE the only decision should be keep. Some schools are lucky enough to have these sources on google news but many older and in fact more historically notable ones do not and that is a shame. Microfilm is just as important. Based on this experience it should be clear that all schools are notable. Also at the very least this school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article, not deleted outright. This preserves the edit history for when sources are found. It should also be noted that this is part of a mass nomination and that should be frowned upon by the community as it shows there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination. I don't think even a PROD was tried first here. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is your second vote in this discussion, plz strike out one of them  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  19:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lucifer, I am striking out the word "keep" from in front of your comment. Anyone is welcome to comment more than once in a discussion (although please see my comments here, which apply to both times you made this identical argument in this discussion), but you can only !vote once. Again, that's the problem with cut-and-pasting the same comment into multiple discussions; you may include a "keep" or "diocesan" where it is not appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2012 (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.