Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn Village 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 redirect without deletion, any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn Village School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable elementary and middle school. Fails WP:ORG Edison (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Auburn,_New_Hampshire#Education. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per usual with middle schools. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks. It does exist, and has run-of-the-mill coverage, but that does not suffice.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the part of the !vote to delete here has no supporting argument. By that I mean that to delete either the redirect (title) or any of the edit history, we would need to know why the material is objectionable. Lack of notability is only objectionable (i.e., a reason for deletion), when there is no wp:verifiable material to merge, and we also have no place/reason to redirect the title. In this case there is nothing close to such conditions. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources have been added to the article. Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't matter if a school fails WP:ORG if it passes WP:GNG, this is spelled out in WP:N. I have spent a couple of man days taking an unsourced article to the point that it passes WP:GNG. This has the unfortunate effect of editors saying that sending articles to AfD is a good thing, because the workers work up the article, but the point is that maybe I could have found other discussions that would have been a more-efficient use of my time because of better-prepared nominations, and without a topic for which we never want to use admins deletion tools solely because of notability concerns. Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. WP:GNG tells us that in looking for sources that count towards notability, they "should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Therefore, I don't believe that the primary sources that you added to the article (e.g., court cases, NH state law, a contract between the school board and the Auburn Education Association) count towards notability. Nor Parent Survey results. Nor run-of-the mill stories (parent threatens student) -- wp:GNG also indicates that the RS articles that count towards notability are those that are "significant coverage". They also have to be "Independent of the subject", and not affiliated with the school or those with a strong connection to it. And they also have to be RSs --it is not clear to me that "Great Schools, Inc" is an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG notability is the sum of its component parts. None of those references to which the previous poster has objected are strictly primary references, they are also secondary references. For example, although the document is an agreement between the school district and the teacher's union, the publisher of the web page with the document is the state of New Hampshire. From the viewpoint of the State of New Hampshire, this relationship is "worthy of notice". Mentioning the set of knowledge that the previous poster does not have about Great Schools, Inc. is called an argument from an absence of knowledge and IMO does not add to the discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you agree that primary sources do not count towards notability. Are you suggesting that court decisions -- such as what you added -- are secondary source, substantial, independent RS coverage that confer notability? NH state law? A contract between the school board and the Auburn Education Association? I don't see any basis whatsoever for that. Quite the opposite. Court decisions are identified clearly as "primary sources". Same with laws. Same with "tabulated results of surveys". See WP:PRIMARY. Also -- on what basis, if it is your assertion, do you believe that the Great Schools, Inc. refs are independent, secondary source, RS coverage?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG mentions "secondary sources". There is a difference in wp:notability between a legal agreement published by the Auburn School District (or the Auburn Education Association), and the same document published by the State of New Hampshire. Is there any room to disagree here? The real question is, if WP:GNG notability is the sum of its component parts, how much weight gets assigned for this source. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has sufficient claim to notability to pass GNG and many refs, although not the best. I've never heard of a modern public elementary school contracting with a private high school to take all of its graduates. Although schools should not need to be unique or "special" to be in WP, this one claim should be enough to pass the higher bar being set by those proposing deletion of most school articles. In addition, there is already too much encyclopedic information to fit into the proposed target locality.--Hjal (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO, the satisfaction of WP:GNG notability here comes from the variety of sources that come at this topic from many directions. This all exists without reference to the WP:NRVE material that exists in the 60 years of history that are not available on the internet. Were it the case that these sources fell short of meeting WP:GNG, I'd still be making the point that the material here is better handled as a stand alone article, as WP:N is only a guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. particularly per Epeefleche - The majority of the source added here are primary the few secondary sources describe particular incidents and the school is only incidentally the location of these (still minor) incidents. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school board. The "references" are for ordinary mentions in newspapers. All schools win titles every now and then and get some local coverage. That doesn't make them notable as their scope is solely local. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge valid, referenced information (from secondary and tertiary sources) to Auburn,_New_Hampshire#Education, and then create a redirect. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 26 February 2012 (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.

Auburn Village School

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.