Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Parish Elementary 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   delete. Based on the below discussion, the science park is being given as the reason for notability. If this is the case, then the science park should have an article. No indication of how the school is notable. Neıl 龱  10:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

West Parish Elementary School

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable elementary school. Nothing shown that asserts this school's notability, and there appears to be little difference between this and thousands of other such schools. Contested multiple PRODs. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no references, no assertion of notability. Biruitorul Talk 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. The school's science park is clearly notable based on the media coverage it has received. --Eastmain (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: IMO, the science park (despite the refs) doesn't raise this school to the level of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable science park backed up by reliable references thus meeting WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A few news stories about one aspect of the school doesn't seem enough to establish notability - basing an article around this would mean that it falls foul of WP:NOT. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:N and is WP:V.--Sting  Buzz Me...   23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but just because an article can exist, should it exist? Biruitorul Talk 17:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're after a philosophical discussion try my talk page.--Sting  Buzz Me...   23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:V and WP:N. Needs expansion however. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the notability is insufficient--local interest only-- & I doubt the article could really be expanded. DGG (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The picture of the science park notes that it is a community science park. It may be located on the grounds, but this seems to disqualify the school as having ownership, and thus cannot be used to establish the notability of the school.  Lacking further claims, I am seeing this article as not asserting notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the first parks in the country of its type. It can be expanded much more than it currently is contrary to what some might think. CelesJalee (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the park is actually notable, then let it, not the school, have its own article. Biruitorul Talk 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see that the articles that were accessible noted that the parent organization had some involvement in raising money. I checked the school and district website and can find no mention of this park being owned or operated by the school or district.  I think to establish notability, it will take more than proving the park exists;  there should be evidence that the school/district owns the park.  Otherwise, it seems to me this is notability by geographic association. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you realize that the school owning the park or not has absolutely nothing to do with the notability factor? This mention in the Boston Globe article, "the vision of a group of parents and staff at the West Parish elementary school who are working to make an interactive "science park" a reality" does however bestow notability on the subject (which is the school NAMED in the story by the way) via a WP:RS no less. It never fails to amaze me how many people never seem to get a grasp of WP:N. The article proves the school exists so there's a pass for WP:V and that's policy by the way.--Sting  Buzz Me...   11:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Response - I will overlook your insult, as I do understand WP:N, and gently remind you to keep your argument focused on the subject, not other editors. Let me put it this way:  if some parents at my Chicago high school decided to get together and raise money for a community botanic garden, and a news article mentioned they were all associated by being parents of students in high school "X", does this give notability to school "X"?  No one here is questioning WP:V.  It is WP:N] that is at the heart of this debate.  Just because a school is named in a [[WP:RS does not establish WP:N.  If that were the case, any 6 year old who makes the honor roll in their small town would meet WP:N.  Any school would eventually meet WP:N, since schools are invariably mentioned by name in an article.  That does not establish WP:N either.  The only aspect of notability that has been argued for in this AfD is that the school has the science park.  I am asking that evidence be presented that the school or the district owns the park.  This evidence has not been presented.  I have looked for it myself, and have found nothing.  Buildings generally do not meet WP:N simply because they are next to something notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (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.