Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Englewood Schools

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 of the debate was Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of external links. There is insufficient actual text in most articles to keep them. After removing all the external links, all that is left is headers. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Englewood Schools

Wikipedia is not a directory of external links. These articles are like Dmoz entries for public schools. Also nominating...

Wickethewok 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep them all. School districts are notable because they spend a lot of money and employ a lot of people. Many of the school district articles should be flagged as {{US-school-stub}}, but if the district articles exist, it's a lot easier to add information about lawsuits, strikes, criminal prosecutions and other news related to a specific school district. I added an introductory paragraph to Englewood Schools, but couldn't find out other details (number of students, number of staff, names of members of the school board) from the district's web site.) TruthbringerToronto 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles that give no context can be and have been speedied. Can't we use {{db-nocontext}} in this case? Hbdragon88 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Schools are not automatically notable, and these articles all blatantly fail Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. No context on any of these. --Coredesat 21:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Coredsat. If a school district has achieved notability for reasons other than having a notable school in it, then it's entitled to an article. But none of these candidates appear to have done so. Tevildo 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all that don't provide verifiable context. WP:NOT a school directory. ~ trialsanderrors 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. I have my doubts about the inherent notability of schools, but I've got no aversion to articles for school districts. Most schools (not all) really ought to be mentioned on nothing more than a list of schools in an article on the school district. School districts are a form of a political division within a state or province (or other similar unit). They usually require elections and have significance in that regard and in regard to education policy as a whole. Agent 86 21:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep School districts are notable, and insufficient content currently is insufficient cause for deletion. --TeaDrinker 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Insufficient content is not a cause for deletion, but insufficient context is. Most of these don't have any. Also, they are still indiscriminate collections of external web links, which is also cause for deletion. --Coredesat 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them all, but remove the external links attached to each school. Only retain one external link for the school district (at the bottom of the page). All articles should also be given introductory paragraphs. --FuriousFreddy 03:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of wikipedia's coverage of schools. Keep the links and let the school articles get written over time. --JJay 04:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all school systems and their list for now. At some point in the future there should be a wikipedia of all the schools and systems (in the US) and perhaps matched in other countries. These should be maintained by the appropriate professional association or governing body. At that time en.wikipedia.org would remove the articles and redirect queries to the new list. Luxomni 12:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:NOT a repository of links (or WP:NG if you like) and I'm not an eventualist; zero context, no content beyond the linkfarm, no claims to notability and it if it weren't for the word school in the title, these would have been speedied or prodded. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Useful way of presenting information and listing missing articles. CalJW 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The articles aren't just lists of schools. Most of them have at least one introductory paragraph about the school district itself, which qualifies them as stubs to be kept and eventually expanded. TruthbringerToronto 18:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — If you object to the external links to the schools, then remove them and just have a link to the school district page. — RJH (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC) RJH (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all please of course school districts are notable Yuckfoo 18:34, 28 June 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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Englewood_Schools