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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails to assert notability or cite any reliable sources. Butseriouslyfolks 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As long as every U.S. numbered road and every British title of nobility and every pro athlete is inherently notable, then so is every school district. Sources can doubtless be found to give statistical info. Edison 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep nominating an article for deletion 10 minutes after creation is not Wikipedia deletion policy. Noroton 22:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the box on top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

And in the section "Before nominating an article for deletion" it says:

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. Noroton 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On WP:POL, under "key policies", in bold, it says:

"Add only information based on reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources, and these sources should be cited so that other editors can check articles."

Also, on every edit screen, it says "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source."

Thus, the very creation of an article which consists exclusively of unsourced assertions is a violation of WP policy. It makes no sense to assign to others the impossible task of proving that there are no sources that support the claims of an article. The article's proponents need to step up and edit the article until it passes muster.

Finally, I have no way of knowing whether anybody will ever come back to an article. If I don't tag it when I see it, it might stay that way indefinitely, and it may give others a negative view of WP. That is why we have policies and guidelines in the first place. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your objection has been made irrelevant by the creator who added footnotes. Noroton 03:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is still relevant vis a vis your position, which is what I was responding to, but as it is no longer relevant to the deletion question at issue here, I will not belabor the point. --Butseriouslyfolks

• Strong Keep School districts, as primary governmental entities, are inherently notable. Expand the article as appropriate. Alansohn 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - School districts, as government bodies, are inherently notable. TerriersFan 00:09, 18 March 2007 (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.