Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagleview Middle 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 no consensus; keep by default.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagleview Middle School

fails WP:NOTE, nicely written article, but completely not notable, tho an attempt is made at notability. Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 01:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I acknowledge that I created this article and that I have edited it heavily, but there are numerous other, less elaborate articles about other public middle schools. I will change my vote to "delete" once all of these other non-notable schools have also been nominated for AfD and others have expressed concern over their respective notabilities. I cite the following examples (many of which are of significantly less quality than Eagleview Middle School): Alvechurch Middle School, Avon Middle High School, Chatham Middle School, Citadel Middle School, City High-Middle School, Clayton Middle/High School, Cranborne Middle School, Gaffney High School (which also fails WP:NOTE, although it does not initially appear to), Joyce Kilmer Middle School, Lexington Middle School, Middle College High School (Stockton), Middle Township High School, Mountain Gap Middle School, Parras Middle School, and Salk Middle School. There are countless other examples that one can find upon searching for the text "middle school". — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 02:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:DISRUPT--ZayZayEM 02:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ZayZayEM, I apologize for the seemingly disruptive tone of my response to this AfD; I was simply shocked that this article would have been nominated before countless other stubs and (arguably) horribly written articles on other schools. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Xarr 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Webdinger, don't apologize. You were not disruptive at all by the definition in that WP:DISRUPT guideline. What is useful in ZayZayEM's link to that guideline were the points it makes in the second and third paragraphs about Wikipedia not being consistent. The guideline shows that your argument has been rejected by a consensus in the past, not that it was disruptive. Noroton 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this school is clearly notable becau of the science performance. As for the others, the way to deal with them is to nominate them for discussion, or to suggest merges. I suggest ignoring the above comment and considering the article on its own merits. DGG 02:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School. Herostratus 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being a school does not automatically make it notable, at all. J Milburn 11:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. Camaron1 | Chris 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article lacks references and might be better merged into a school district article. Though, its length and inclusion of some detail do suggest notability. Camaron1 | Chris 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That there are other middle schools with articles doesn't matter much; heck, I've filed prods on a bunch this past week (and thanks to Webdinger for directing me to more!). That this article is slightly better than a stub doesn't matter much either: odds are vanishingly small that any secondary school would lack extracurriculars, a core curriculum, administrators and an honor roll. What this article lacks, as is required by Wikipedia, are sources, and so it fails WP:ATT. Until and unless they are provided, this school's science performance is an allegation only. Ravenswing 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this good looking article. Too much good detail to merge. I agree with DGG's comments above. Noroton 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but does needs work. However, I have rewritten 2 weak stubs in about 2-3 days and have my plate full for now.VK35 23:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well written article about a significant school. I have sourced up the Science win to establish notability - other sourcing required but that is an editorial matter. TerriersFan 03:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand into an article on Academy School District 20. Chris 02:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. "Well-written" and "nice looking" are invalid keep reasons. "No secondary sources are available" is a valid deletion reason, and I sure can't find a single one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with respect, the key notability is 'winning the 2006 Colorado Science Olympiad competition', and that is reliably sourced, and I have also sourced the '2003-04 Report card' and '2005-06 Report card' where the School scored 'Excellent'. TerriersFan 03:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also with respect, none of those things establish notability. Multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources independent of a subject covering it establish notability. "It's a really good school" does not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with irritation. Seraphimblade, I welcome well-meaning criticism (such as yours above) of the criteria I use in deletion discussions, but I followed that link you gave for "invalid", and the section you linked to has nothing to do with the point that I and the other editor were making. If I missed something relevant in that paragraph, please point it out. Noroton 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (self-edit, Noroton 16:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep as-is per the comments above, the removal of this article would be detrimental to our project. RFerreira 02:01, 15 April 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.