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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable school. Phoenix Hacker 09:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are we trying to delete pages now before they are created? :-) -- Koffieyahoo 09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link was incorrect. Fixed. Yomangani 09:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails the test of another editor that I have taken to heart. Agent 86 17:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the very active WP:EiC project. --Stephane Charette 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it is very tiresome when members of WP:EiC (Education in Canada wikiproject) spend so much time voting for these AfD versus working on articles.  :( --Stephane Charette 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This article is part of a complete series covering education in Richmond, British Columbia. Silensor 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep n school. Nicodemus75 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the school district article, if not Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of an active and interlinked project. Kappa 19:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fact that the school is part of an active project does not make it notable. Consider instead the possibility that a WikiProject that is intended to flood the encyclopedia with schoolcruft might just be a mistaken endeavour. — Haeleth Talk 20:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This sentence is "bad faith" taken to a whole other level -- labelling the contributions of not just a single editor "flooding" and "cruft", but the entire wikiproject and all of it's members! Certainly makes me glad to be part of such a project! (Project=wiki as well as WP:EiC.) --Stephane Charette 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would strongly suggest, before you reply, that you come check out WP:EiC and WT:EiC to see what the project is about. "Flooding" and "cruft" are not an accurate description of what Education in Canada is trying to achieve. Instead of randomly deleting school articles, it would probably help if the article was listed at WP:EiC#Cleanup needed, and just as importantly, come spend some time helping us get through the list of schools that we're busy cleaning up. --Stephane Charette 21:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both sides could use an amount of viewing things from another's point of view, the way I see it. The converse of your assertion might be stated as other editors being tired of having to put inherently non-notable/unencyclopedic articles through the AFD process. Two sides to every debate, and all that. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non notable elementary school. I'd recommend the project redirect its efforts to more noteworthy articles. Vickser 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Wikipedia is a community based project, allow others to expand into areas of their own interest. Bahn Mi 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an elementary school with no claim to notability made other than it being a school. High schools are notable. Comprehensive schools that contain high school segments are notable. Middle and elementary schools are not. Erechtheus 23:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no claim of notability. Some high schools make the cut, but only truly noteworthy elementary schools are worthy of encyclopedia articles. The creation of a wikiproject does not give encyclopedic value to its subjects, and WP:SCHOOLS is a failed guideline. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. For a subject to have an entry in such a reference work, it must be possible to write an encyclopedic article on the subject - i.e., one that is well-referenced to multiple independent reliable sources. I am unable to see that the subject of this page satisfies that criterion. I am also unable to see anything that persuades me to take an eventualist view with respect to sourcing for this subject. Therefore I believe the page should be deleted. Should good sources on this subject become available in the future, an article can always be written then. —Encephalon 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bahn Mi. --Myles Long 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory of schools. Moreover, eventhough this is not paper, my guess is that the number of schools in the world is so large that there is simply no space to have an interesting non-stub article on all of them. -- Koffieyahoo 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having a wikiproject won't make you notable. -- GWO
• Delete Once again, an elementary school with no assertion of notability. My town of 45,000 citizens has seven elementary schools- if every elementary school had its own article, the number of articles on WP would be greater than the number of websites that have ever existed (and perhaps will ever exist) on the Net. -- Kicking222 18:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with School District 38 Richmond. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: how can you possibly recommend this? We have a stub for a school board, with 51 schools, and your recommendation is we take just 1 of those schools and merge it with the school board? The reason the articles are layed out the way they are is because we fully intend to have them all developped into full articles. How could we possibly merge this one stub into the school board article without making a mess of things? --Stephane Charette 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand this article on a worthy topic. Piccadilly 13:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. All US schools are notable. Where do you think high school kids come from? Orangehead 15:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect, no claim to notability outside of "all schools are notable" assertions. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There appears to be an underlying agrument that there are so many schools that only notable ones should be included. Notability (or lack there of) is not a reason for, by itself, for deletion - WP:NN is not a policy nor is anyone elses acroynm that may be applied to test an article. The vastness of a subject is also not a reason to exclude articles, WP:NOT makes the contrary arguement: "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." The only valid argument is the shortness of the current articles, which I agree with. There is an active project to create and edit these pages and I believe that we should be able to ask the indulgence of our fellow wikepedians until we can get all the information into these articles. Wakemp 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if WP:N is not official policy, it justifies itself on its page via existing policy. I would similarly like to point out that for people/groups and nonprofit organizations bio (policy) and org (active proposal), respectively, there are indeed demonstrated-notability requirements. It is thus disingenuous to say that notability is not a legitimate consideration when considering an article's deletion. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are many considerations but it was sounding to me like notability (or not) was being used as the measuring stick to keep or delete. My assertion was that notablility is not a criteria in WP:AFD and it continues to be used as if it were a offical 'rule'. If that is true, regardless of the effort we put into making it a better article it could still be the subject of a AfD request. That certainly puts a chill on anyone that might consider contributing. Wakemp 20:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: It's being used as a measuring stick because it is a valid enough concern in evaluating the potential for an encyclopedic article to be written about the subject for it to have made it into official community guidelines. People are not citing notability as a concern just because they don't think that the subject is popular enough to have an article (indeed, popularity has nothing to do with notability), they are doing so because these subjects individually (this one, as well) do not have enough importance to be the primary focus of a single independant verifiable case study, report, or what have you. They are all taken in broad sweeps and wide-ranging reports that include thousands of schools that have no claim at all to any importance outside of the community that they are in. This is the reason people are expressing these complex ideas by explaining (in far fewer words) these sorts of concerns with the possibility of an encyclopedic article about the school in question. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: As an example of why the above reasoning does not necessarily give you a subject about which it is appropriate to write, take for example if you had an information database of a major veterinary health-care provider that had gobs and gobs of information about individual pets, including detailed health histories, biological information, ownership, etc. While this information can give you the workings of a Wikipedia article that meets many of the technical standards required by policy (Not original research, verifiability, reliable sourcing, citations, etc.), that does not mean that an article for each individual pet would make for appropriately encyclopedic topics. By this logic that is not be appropriate, and it is fairly plain to see that it would be a glaring error on the grounds (I would say of notability, but) that Wikipedia is not for arbitrary collection of information. The standard is something that has come out through consensus, and the fact that the WP:N essay itself is not policy is only evidence that people think notability standards should be addressed in proprietary categories, as I mentioned earlier. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe the template needs to be modified or deleted also. Vegaswikian 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What would you modify the template to get it to do? Note that this template is used by nearly 1000 articles, so I'm curious to see what your recommendation would be once it is deleted as you suggest. --Stephane Charette 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either not provide links to other then high schools or delete it. By building a template that is linked to over 1,000 times, it serves to fuel AfD discussions on schools. Why create a template, {{RichmondBCSchools}}, that allows editors to blindly walk into this ongoing consensus issue battle? Why do these schools need to be listed in 1,000 articles? If you check links, then there appears to be fewer then 50 using this template, so are we talking about the same template. Vegaswikian 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I thought you were talking about the {{Infobox Education in Canada}} template used on the school page, which should have been obvious given the link I gave in my comment above yours. With enough time, we're taking the school stubs that people start and bringing them up to something more decent, like Richmond Secondary School which you'll notice also uses {{RichmondBCSchools}}. Personally, I think it looks just fine, and I'm hoping you'll agree. Thing is the longer we keep deleting the articles, the longer it takes for us to get the job done. There shouldn't be any reason to delete either {{Infobox Education in Canada}} or school district navigation boxes like {{RichmondBCSchools}}. --Stephane Charette 06:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• But {{RichmondBCSchools}} and your reasons push the position that all schools are notable. This is clearly not supported by consensus and that is why including those in a template like that is an issue. Vegaswikian 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, navigation bars are exactly that -- navigation bars. To take the classic example (Star Wars) from many discussion, see Peragus II and the navigation bar {{StarWarsPlanets}}. The same in this case, where our school boards have navigation bars. When stubs gets created, then we have stubs to work with, and when they don't have enough content or the quality is lacking, then they get listed at WP:EiC#Cleanup needed with a description of what is wrong with the article. Go ahead and visit that last link to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. --Stephane Charette 06:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Please delete, please delete because it's NN and we all know it. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Exactly which section of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion describes your interpretation of NN and how it directly relates to deleting school articles? Please recall that WP:NN is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. --Stephane Charette 06:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please see my above comment regarding notability standards. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent and recent AfD discussions, most notably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annieville Elementary School. The policy discussion at WP:SCHOOLS should be resurrected instead of changing precedent at AfD. Accurizer 14:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For those recommending deletion, please clarify if - regardless of the effort we put into making it a better article, it should still be the subject of a AfD request? Wakemp 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I have said above, I would have no problem including the article if it could be shown that the school has been the subject of multiple reliable sources of independant coverage. So far it has not been shown to have been the subject of more than an entry in a census. Failing that, however, I think that the multiple substub entries on each individual elementary school would be better placed in the school district instead of spread out to an unacceptably sparse level over dozens of almost-contentless articles. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article will benefit from improvement, and is clearly identified as a stub. I am most impressed by the level of structure, organization and thought demonstrated by the WP:EiC initiative and its team members, which makes it clear to me that the promise of expanding these into yet more productive and useful articles is eminently justifiable. I would like to suggest that other areas (perhaps organized by state in the US) would greatly benefit from the methodolgy developed as part of WP:EiC, and I will certainly take advantage of these concepts in expanding the scope of WP:NJ, which has craeted articles for most New Jersey school districts and a significant percentage of the state's high schools. Bravo WP:EiC! Alansohn 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the outcome of the school wars. Gazpacho 19:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.