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 merge to Fresno Unified School District. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Middle School (California)

[edit]
Cooper Middle School (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Decently-sourced article, but it's a primary school with no reliable sources to indicate a rationale for encyclopedic merit. I propose this be merged/redirected to Fresno Unified School District. (in fact, I've tried doing so and it was reverted, hence the Article for Discussion/Deletion) tedder (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article still does not clearly demonstrate why it is particularly notable. Peripheral notabilities are not transferable, and the article contains at least 50% irrelevant material for any Wikipedia school page. While those alone are not reasons for deletion, it will demonstrate the amount of material left for merging. With all due respect, I would strongly suggest that you now take a moment to read up on our general guidelines for using edit summaries (which make debates like this a lot easier), article creation, then everything in WP:WPSCH and WP:SCH/AG. Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung: Please read the section about the special state law that was passed specifically for Cooper in order for a special after-school program to be created. The article referenced clearly states that the school is unique. This reason alone is enough to provide sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia standards. BrianRiley (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you say Brian;) According to my dictionary unique ≠ notable. Let's now see how the debate concludes. Kudpung (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was following up on Cullen328's comment above ("unless there is something truly distinctive about the school, as compared to similar schools"). Surely having a state law written specifically for Cooper--a state law that specifically mentions Cooper Middle School in the text of the law that the purpose of the law is to set up a special program specifically at Cooper Middle School--surely that makes Cooper "truly distinctive" and notable. So far no one in this discussion has cited a specific sentence in a Wikipedia policy BrianRiley (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By 'significant' newspaper coverage is meant mainstream newspaers such as the Washington Post or the New York Times, or at least coverage in several statewide daily newspapers. Perhaps several full length articles in the Bee may count towards notability. As per MelanieN, the 'special law' is no big deal.Kudpung (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to differ; it is not necessary that every Wikipedia subject be covered by the New York Times. Mainstream regional papers like the Fresno Bee (which covers the entire San Joaquin valley, an area larger than many states) are fully accepted here as Reliable Sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (local interests). -MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Melanie, unfortunately it is not. What you are quoting is not policy. It's not a guide line, it's not even a Wikipedia essay. It's a proposal under construction that has no consensus whatsoever. Nevertheless, if you are going to cite Wikipedia, please be sure to refer accurately to the context. The page states:
...they must meet varying guidelines pertaining to in-depth, on-going, non-trivial coverage.
and
In order for a local interest to be notable, it must, to a very high standard, have multiple reliable sources independent from the subject that provide in-depth, non-trivial coverage pertaining to the subject itself.
None of the press articles about the school fulfills any of these requirements. Kudpung (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "No, Melanie, it is not"... what "it" is that? Are you saying the Fresno Bee is not a reliable source, that regional papers don't count? Because that's what I was talking about. I was just challenging your implication that a subject has to be covered by the Times or the Post to rate a Wikipedia article. In fact there are many, many reliable sources out there meeting the requirement that they be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (I'm quoting from WP:SOURCES, which IS policy.) In your answer you seem to have shifted your focus to talk about the depth of the coverage. That's not what I was arguing. It's perfectly valid to debate how substantive (or not) any given coverage is, and I have admitted that if this school qualifies, it qualifies barely (that's why I said "weak" keep). But if that's your issue with this article, don't confuse us by attacking the sources when you mean to talk about the extent of the coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, I don't think anyone familiar with the Fresno Bee doubts that it a reliable source. The issue here is whether the specific references now in the article or available online establish notability of this topic. So far, I have seen no convincing evidence that they do, and I've looked. Perhaps you can take an additional look yourself.Cullen328 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cullen. An excellent and very accurate analysis. I would further add that every community has a fire station (probably called a fire department in the USA), that gets mentioned in the local paper for fighting a fire or rescuing cat from up a tree every week. That does not make the fire department in Fresno any more notable than any of the tens of thousands of other fire stations across the US. Most communities have a primary school or a middle school... This, at least, is an accredited Wikipedia essay. Kudpung (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, you seem to be missing the pertinent point which is that the state law was specific to Cooper Middle School. It was not a state law that applied generically to all middle schools. If this doesn't meet the criterion for notability, then nothing will. So now let me see if I understand you correctly. You agree that there were articles written about this, but you are claiming that the articles weren't in depth enough? Who is to judge whether an article is in depth enough? Where is the Wikipedia policy that explains whether an article is in depth enough on a certain topic? Show us what the policy is and tell us exactly how you are applying it to this case. And I think you're not stating the facts correctly. Both the Olvera article and the Matlosz article in the Fresno Bee are centered on Cooper as the school involved and it is not true to say that the articles merely mention Cooper Middle School in passing.BrianRiley (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is to judge? We are - that's what this debate is for. Consensus (not a !vote count) will be evaluated and assessed by the closing administrator based on the standard accepted practice(s) as required/suggested in policy and/or guidelines, taking into account the quality of the arguments put forward by the participants. Kudpung (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question. Which Wikipedia policy references criteria to determine whether a news article makes an in depth reference to a topic? In any event, as I said, both the Olvera article and the Matlosz article are centered on Cooper Middle School. So in that case the Wikipedia article on Cooper should be kept and the contention that the school is not notable is a shaky premise. A state law was written specifically for Cooper Middle School--a state law that created a special program specifically for Cooper Middle School. At least two news articles were written which were centered on Cooper. What other criteria do you need? BrianRiley (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question doesn't need answering. There can be a hundred fleeting reports in the local or regional press about an insignificant topic but they won't build notability. The sources required by this encyclopedia are for confirming a notability that already exists. The claim(s) to notability of this school are not of sufficient encyclopedic importance any more than if it were the first school to receive a city hall allocation to buy computers for the classrooms. This sort of gloss is in every local paper, all the time. The Frenso Bee is a respectable paper and a reliable source, it may cover an area the size of England, and address a population the size of New Zealand, but it still makes it also the local paper for Fresno City. Local hacks in every country hang out around the back door of the city hall, the court house, and the hospital to garner any snippet to fill the column space - I know, I used to be one before I became a teacher!--Kudpung (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I removed the paragraph about the assault. This is not a newspaper or a repository of news articles. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an event that happened at the school. How's it different than a school shooting or other event? It may be undue weight, but it seems encyclopedic. tedder (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it's undue weight and does not conform to the strictly neutral kind of article we should have about schools. In one article about an Australian school where twice in its history students went on a mass shoplifting spree in a local mall and and the event got the school closed down for a week, and there were several press and TV reports, the item was removed from the Wikipedia article. We should not confuse notability with notoriety. However, we're off-topic here. Kudpung (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
tedder, if it were a shooting it might be a different matter (with more coverage), but this is a punch and some hairpulling. How is that worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Drmies (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2011 (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.
More