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 02:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-notable primary/middle school. Aside from the school controversy this article also fails WP:V and WP:OR. The page was tagged with proposed delete, but the tag was removed without substantial changes to the page. A quick Google search does not turn up what I would consider to be promising online sources to cure the information problem. Erechtheus 01:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article as it stands does not seem to indicate why the school is more notable than other middle schools; it's just an ordinary school that does not need its own article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real, established and verifiable school, and important to Catholic education in Garnerville. We shouldn't betray wikipedia users who wish to find out about it. Also per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 01:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just how is this verifiable? There are no sources. If you know of them, perhaps now would be the time to add them. Erechtheus 01:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing a quick web search, there appear to be several reasonable candidates for sources. The article is certainly verifiable. It wouldn't be a big deal for someone to add the sources to the article; maybe I'll do that tomorrow. Having said that, AfD is not cleanup. Giving an article a five-day deadline to become top-quality isn't always fair to the people who are interested in the article; some things take time. Oh, and keep (although a merge is okay with me too if anyone wants to propose one). JYolkowski // talk 02:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the event that sources are found and added, we're back to the same old school debate. I have to disagree about cleanup versus AfD. When there are no sources cited in the article at all and the article has been around for over 2 months, peril of deletion only seems appropriate. Erechtheus 02:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, but until two days ago there were no inbound or outbound links and no categories. Essentially, it was almost impossible to find even if someone did want to expand it, source it, etc. JYolkowski // talk 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why would you use Wikipedia to find out about schools? Any useful information other than location and the colour of the school mascot would likely be POV. Parents who move to the neighbourhood would find more useful school guides than wikipedia. Catchpole 10:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's anything inherently POV about explaining the history and makeup of the school and any notable events connected with it. Wikipedia is more accessible than a school guide which is only available in the neighbourhood. Frankly I have almost no interest in US schools, but I would like to be able to read about schools in various other countries without having to actually visit the location (or speak the language). Kappa 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable school. JoshuaZ 04:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete as it is directory entry and wikipedia is not a directory -- Koffieyahoo 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not verified mboverload@ 05:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article is verifiable and expandable, topic is useful and notable. -- Visviva 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wikipedia is not a school directory, there is no other reason that this would be notible.--Musaabdulrashid 07:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable school. Viridae^Talk 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since citing summaries of reasons for holding a position to keep a school has recently come under attack, here are some of the reasons that I think this particular school-related article should be kept:

huge textdump removed - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my thoughtful opinion that these reasons taken together are applicable to this discussion even they may treat of other school articles or school articles in general, it is my opinion that this particular article ought to retained for these (and other reasons.--Nicodemus75 08:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make a point by disrupting AFD with a huge textdump again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a "textdump", removing other editor's comments is vandalism. I am perfectly entitled to state as many reasons as I like why this article should be kept.--Nicodemus75 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a compromise, I've moved the removed text to this AfD's talk page. -- H·G (^words/_works) 07:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete They'll be a flood of "keep" citing non-guidelines and non-policies, but this is nothing but a stub. It can be mentioned in Garnerville,_New_York somewhere. Wikipedia is not a directory and it is not an indescriminate collection of information. If an actual article can't be written, it needs to head for its city/town article and the tidbit of information can go there. It fails the proposed policy on WP:SCHOOL and dpbsmith's nice little BEEFSTEW criteria. Kevin_b_er 08:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Garnerville, New York unless significantly expanded. Yamaguchi先生 08:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school (less than 200 students). Cedars 08:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A private (admittedly not-for-profit) business that fails WP:CORP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a school directory, no indication of being notable. Catchpole 09:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, most schools are notable. Keep for expansion. 66.122.247.91 10:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC) forgot to sign in, that was my vote bbx 10:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't think a merge works, here, as this is a private school and therefore not part of the municipal structure. Private schools have more potential than public schools to have a real identity, but this article appears to be by inmates of the school, and they have little to say. Geogre 11:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiability criteria is taken care of with the reference links. We can prove the school exists. Now the fact that its a stub... well that isnt a good reason for deletion. If we deleted all stubs half the wiki would be gone. Leave and give it time for organic growth.  ALKIVAR™ 12:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does this article verifiably meet the applicable notability standard? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three comments:
      1. WP:CORP isn't an applicable notability standard, even for private schools. Schools are not important because of the amount of money they make, but because hundreds of people spend huge amounts of time at them at a pivotal time of their lives.
      2. Almost all schools meet WP:CORP anyway. Even ignoring the references already in the article, I'm sure that this place, like almost every other school, has had significant local media coverage.
      3. Lack of notability isn't a reason for deletion except in narrowly defined circumstances. It can be a reason for merging though, which I'd personally be okay with.
    • JYolkowski // talk 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Why isn't WP:CORP applicable? It is a business, and while #2 and #3 of WP:CORP aren't likely to be relevant, #1 (the existence of media coverage) is relevant. Traditionally, it's on the author of an article to assert that their article on a private business serves some encyclopedic purpose and that it can be expanded into an encyclopedic article, and isn't vanity or advertisement or just an unexpandable demographic stub.

      That said, I wouldn't particularly object to a merge; I'm just not sure where. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - --and allow the school to expand as suggested above. It is a new entry and can improve. Just because it is a small school should not be a reason to keep it out. Small schools can be notable. When you say the "inmates" wrote it, you must mean the students. That is looking down on the students who are trying to work on their page because they don't have all the technical people public schools have. When the School Project wants a school to be kept, then they fix up a stub to keep it from being deleted. Is it only public schools that they will work on so they can be notable? LemonIce 12:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable primary school. Kafziel 13:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject is not sufficiently notable/important to have been the subject of multiple, verifiable reliable source studies- the source that verifies its existence is a collection/census of school information listed in serial. When the school is subject to a specific study or becomes notable for anything, this vote will change to a keep. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a high school, not notable. A small school can be notable, but it has to prove that it's notable. --PresN 15:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons described at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The school is verifiable through three different reliable sources. Three = multiple. (forgot to sign) Silensor 20:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment just adding sig on Silensor's behalf.--Isotope23 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment- The school is not the primary subject of any of the external links, and the article fails to show that the subject has been the targeted subject of any external coverage at all. One of them is from the school itself. Verifiability goes a long way toward making an article come to standard, but it is not the only requirement. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - i'm convinced it exists, I'm just not convinced that it's notable. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable school Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, people have proposed merging into articles about places or districts, but the simplest solution is just to keep the stubs. Gazpacho 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's 4 AM where I am, so I don't trust myself to insert information into the article at present. However, here are two third-party articles about the school: New York Lottery News Rockland Journal-News These would appear to meet the definition of non-trivial coverage in Wikipedia:Schools and also the general description of reliable sources. Although these must both have been written on slow news days, they do seem to meet the letter of the guidelines. Perhaps I'm missing something? -- Visviva 19:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this school is verifiable and important too Yuckfoo 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The first link isn't about the school itself. The second one doesn't distinguish this school from any other, really (lots of schools do that). This is a primary school, which needs to do a lot more than just exist to be included. There are no policies that require the inclusion of all schools, and arguments cannot be cited as policy, as precedents are not binding here. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and allow for organic growth. The current sources are fine as they are, but the more that can be added the better. Bahn Mi 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiable short article. Deleting this useful information would be unwise. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this at all useful? Wikipedia is not a directory of schools. The information can be found out by anyone who is interested enough about the school to ring it up, and any parent wishing to enroll their child in a school will most certainly do so. Similarly they are hardly going to turn to wikipedia to find what schools are in thier local area. Viridae^Talk 08:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why wouldn't someone turn to wikipedia to find out what schools are in a given area? We actually have a pretty great set of encyclopedia articles on schools. I look for info about schools on Wikipedia all the time. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not a phone directory. We also cannot guarantee that every school in a specific area has an article, and judging by the state of many of the school articles, that the information contained within is accurate or up to date. Viridae^Talk 08:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article contains no assertion of notability for the school, thus violating the WP:NOT clause against being an indiscriminate collection of information. GRBerry 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. school Carlossuarez46 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample verifiable information to expand this rather discriminate collection of information about a parochial school. Alansohn 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, expand and rename to St. Gregory Barbarigo School. --Usgnus 01:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, not useful, not expandable. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, useful, expandable. bbx 20:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiable, yes. Notable, no. Unless there is something notable about this school, it can never be expanded with any information relevent to people outside of the school. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:33, 4 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.