Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Middle School (Norristown, Pennsylvania)


 * 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. Sourcing concerns not addressed. Shimeru 08:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Stewart Middle School (Norristown, Pennsylvania)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing specific for notability, except the unreferenced program participation from 1981--might possibly be enough if there were two independent sources for  it. DGG 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - All currently open middle schools that have an well-written article can be included. That's my objective criterion. What other objective criteria that can be applied to all middle schools is being offered for inclusion, or exclusion for this particular school? patsw 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   -- Noroton 04:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks fine to me. I see nothing wrong with giving a subjective judgment, so long as we try to be fair about it, and that's really what Patsw's and my criteria are in this case -- subjective. I guess I think we should be tougher in our standards for middle schools than high schools, because they are less notable and less important. If someone's going to bother to write an article on one that doesn't have too many problems with it, I'm inclined to want to keep it. Noroton 05:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the criteria set forth in WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N. Just because someone bothers to write an article doesn't mean it should be included (unfortunately). Notability guidelines state that the onus is placed on the editor (and the community at large) to produce reliable sources. If notability can be established through the participation in the PDE's School Climate Improvement Project then it may be eligible to be kept but this depends on the size and scope of the project. There may not be a consensus between editors on the notability of educational institutions but until one is reached we must attempt to follow the guidelines set down in WP:ORG which covers educational institutions. Xarr 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In almost all practical senses, a public school's own Web site, minus the gushing and laudatory adjectives, is a reliable source, certainly for basic facts. In the United States, the No Child Left Behind Act seems to require that state governments create annual reports on schools, constituting an independent source of information. Therefore, as commmon sense will tell us, the nature of reliable sources on public schools is fundamentally different from other organizations listed at WP:ORG, and as WP:IAR tells us, we can overrule WP:ORG. Just because someone bothers to write a policy that fails common sense in a particular instance (or even category), doesn't mean we have to march over the cliff behind it. Addressing notability doesn't end the matter of whether a school article should stay or go: If some school articles attract vandalism or don't take advantage of the reliable sources available, they can and should be merged into district articles, letting readers who type in the school's name be redirected to the district article. This does not address non-U.S. schools and private schools.Noroton 17:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly Notable: school has a community learning center grant, a partnership with Family Services AND a state of the art wireless (computer) network, with plenty of reliable and verifiable sources. Oh yea! Delete as more schoolcruft. Eusebeus 18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What are the objective criteria for including or excluding middle schools that can be applied to all schools? If that cannot be articulated, then delete-voters has no objective reasons for their vote.  They are just making it up as they go along (i.e. notability -- I know it when I see it).  It's totally lame and arbitrary.  One reading these votes to delete would come to no insight into how to write an article that you delete-voters could find satisfactory.  This leads me to ask why isn't every middle school with an article nominated for deletion?  patsw 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're confusing "notability, i know it when I see it" with "well-written article, I know it when I see it and I want to keep it". Interesting points about the usefulness of objectivity, however.Noroton 05:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * neutral Most subjects are subjective to some extent--only the general requirements for RSs is always present. There are none here--the district is not independent, and the Penna. report is included within the Great Schools and gives no specific non-trivial information. The  reason there are so few newspaper and other articles on middle schools is clear: the media find nothing to write about. Even the  criterion of helping readers is unnecessary: anyone who goes to google will find the same sources as used here. WP is not Great Schools. Why duplicate it on a completely unselective basis unless we have something to add?DGG 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * DGG, first, you can't be comparing some reader reading an article with trawling through Google to find information. You didn't write that. My eyes are lying to me. And you must not have looked to closely at the Pennsylvania DOE Web page -- that is, their main Web page for the school. If you click on the pyramid-shaped triangles, you get far greater detail than Great Schools provides. So much detail that your eyes will quickly glaze over. There are few articles on this middle school, but there are almost 600 in the Google Archives link I provided at the Walnut Middle School deletion discussion, and many of those focus on the school. Walnut wins WP:Notable hands down; this one, not so much. My guess is that Walnut is the more usual case. Noroton 05:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Delete-voters, do you expect newspapers to make a middle school the subject of an article in the performance of its core function of educating the young people of a community? There are no headlines reading "Sun rises as expected"  The criterion that a middle school has to have google-able headlines to be included is unrealistic and will excluded schools that should otherwise be included.  patsw 12:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Actually, yes, we do expect that reliable, published sources make non-trivial references to the school (as WP:ATT requires) for it to pass inclusion muster.  That like most of the rest this school fails our standards doesn't mean that there is something wrong with the standards and that their application is unrealistic; it means that the article's subject fails to pass muster and so should not be included.  RGTraynor 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The precedent has been to generally keep high school articles and delete grade school/middle school articles, unless they have sources independent of the school which are reliable (meeting WP:ATT and which have coverage which goes into depth about the school. Does not appear to satisfy WP:ATT, WP:N or WP:AI. (Would it have satisfied WP:SCHOOL, which is currently tagged as "historical" but had a lot of good work to arrive at a consensus?) Edison 17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Ive taken a stand and that all middle schools are notable. Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 18:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing that suggests that there is a way of finding proper references to the article. Pax:Vobiscum 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pre reasons above. These are valid and specific. The keep votes seems to be keep because. Vegaswikian 00:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - another afd for a school of similar notability; thus, all the reasons given at similar middle school afd's before. It's clearly notable to the local community, and would survive an afd were it any other subject. Patstuarttalk·edits 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:N - Aagtbdfoua 03:03, 2 April 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.