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 delete. Disregarding "all schools are inherently notable" arguments, the arguments to delete are stronger than the ones for keeping. The article also has little useful information ("the school is made of brick"), so there isn't really anything to merge, particularly if the outdated link on the school district is fixed to reflect the school's new designation. --Coredesat 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice And Everett Haines Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. My reason was given as primary school with no assertion of notability per WP:SCHOOLS or otherwise the prod was removed with comment deprod school, mergable but no merge was carried out nor a target identified. I would rather see this deleted as non-notable and lacking relaible sources, but if people prefer a merge, I urge them to carry it out rather than leave a poorly referenced stub of dubious notability. Eluchil404 08:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of apparent notability (a rough Google doesn't even give many results, let alone independent ones). Merge to the locality if we must, but I doubt that's a great idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 10:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Gotta love de-prodders who give zero reasons why (and saying, "Sweet crackers! It's a school! Heavens forbid!" is not a reason). -- Kicking222 15:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Read the prod instructions. It only says to note the removal in the edit summary; not to give a reason why. Some of the prod postings themselves are similarly lacking in suitable justification. In some cases I think that just the lack of a prod comment is sufficient justification for removal of the PROD. The prod itself may simply be a form of vandilism or spite. — RJH (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like just another elementary school, with no assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think that I have encountered an elementary school restricted to a single grade (Grade 6, in this case) before. I hope that the school board will eventually publish some kind of evaluation to discuss the advantages and problems associated with a single-grade school like this. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are tons of schools in Jersey that only cover 6th grade. This one is in no way unique, and in addition, it completely fails your precious WP:SCHOOLS. -- Kicking222 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article about a very unique and interesting school, per TruthbringerToronto, but I will probably move it to its current proper name. Unfocused 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is it unique, and how is it interesting? If it's either of those things, please feel free to add sourced information to the article. Right now, it's just a school, and no interesting qualities are given. Your vote amounts to "keep all schools for no reason." -- Kicking222 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that I believe every school I've ever seen or read of serve their communities with an importance that far exceeds the societal impact of the average music CD, yet we keep those CDs, is not "keep all schools for no reason", it's "keep all schools for very good reasons that Kicking222 doesn't agree with". In my experience, a school that serves only one grade is unique and interesting. I'd never even heard of such a thing, and I've been editing schools here for over two years, logged in and anon. That you find them common suggests that more of them should have articles here on Wikipedia. Unfocused 01:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "The school is made of brick." Good, the 6th graders don't need to worry about the Big Bad Wolf. But no claim of notability. Mention it in the article for the town, until evidence of notability is found. Edison 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - school is already mentioned (and links to it are external, not internal) in the articles both about its community and its school district. --JohnDBuell 18:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Delete votes are destructive; Why not merge?!?! Alansohn 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you think it should be merged then say so. And general claims about deletion being "destructive" with the use of many exclamation points is not an argument for the keeping of this school in particular, unless you want to go through and keep everything since deletion is "destructive"
• Delete As another not-notable school. It doesn't even meet the generous WP:SCHOOLS inclusion criterion. The school has nothing unique about it, no notable alumni, no clubs or teams that performed at a notable level, no awards or any other distinguishing features. JoshuaZ 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into school district, per nomination, and then delete DesertSky85451 01:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can't do that per the GFDL. If we merge we need to leave a redirect. JoshuaZ 02:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad. DesertSky85451 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and allow the article to be expanded; I would like to know about it personally and I'm sure that there are thousands of others who may as well. No opposition to this being merged in the meantime. Silensor 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion of notability. Okay, it exists. It's required by state law to exist. —ptk✰fgs 11:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Lets start being honest, no school ever deserves to be deleted. It either stays or it gets merged. These AfD's are just a waste of time and very detrimental to Wikipedia's outside image! --Mike 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None "deservers to be deleted"? How did you come to that conclusion? JoshuaZ 19:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The smallest level at which I would expect Wikipedia to have entries is the local area equivalent to a small village. In a modern village the school is often the main if not sole focue to the community. It therefore follows that it would be impossible to write an article on each geographical area without mentioning the school. So, much better is to turn it around and have an entry for each school and tag onto it a bit of information on the local area. By tagging it to the school it also ensures that sub-areas with less population than a school are not included. But most of all, I've often had to resort to school web sites to research local areas because the school web site is the only source of local information. If I have found information on schools of invaluable use, then I see no reason why numerous other people would not, and to my mind that warrants an entry on most schools (although I might merge infant schools by area). I hope that answers your question! TO recap: I use WIkipedia, I have need of information on most schools, and therefore as a user i wish Wikipedia to have entries on most schools QED -keeep --Mike 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The school is the main or sole focus of a whole community? You cannot possibly be serious. This is true in a number of college towns, but it's beyond ludicrous to suggest that this elementary school is the sole focus of the community in which it resides. —ptk✰fgs 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course I am serious. There are many places where the only information on the locale is the school. WIkipedia does not pay its contributors, it can't force a comprehensive coverage of all areas, but if it has a positive attitude to school then it will achieve this. I'm amazed that I have to explain this! Of course schools are the centre of whole communities. Within our local, the only is the only social facility - there are no shops, no pubs, no hotels, no factories, no square, there's a garage, and around 5000 people. In fact, the only reason most people live here is because the secondary school (there isn't any other reason to live here!). I am much more a user of wikipedia than a contributor. I know what kind of articles that I find useful - and by far the most useful articles are the ones that cover micro-geographical details as contained in most good school articles. I explained that Wikipedia needs to work with schools rather than trying to piss them off! There is no good reason to delete this article except prejudice by those that don't live in the area (and I don't!) --Mike 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, let me state that you are welcome to delete articles about schools in my area. I really don't mind. Now as to the more substantial points, while we are concered with users of Wikipedia that isn't the be-all and end-all. As a user, I'd like to have all mathematical knowledge on the planet in Wikipedia. It would be quite convenient. And I'd like to have individual articles on each stamp ever issued by the US government, and each coin as well. That doesn't mean we should have that. Furthermore, we have no evidence that this school is the sort of hub that you are claiming it is. While colleges (and occasionally highschools) sometimes seem to be such hubs, the claim that an elementary school is such a hub is very hard to believe. If you had a reliable source that claimed that this school functioned as a hub or some similar comment, that would be worth something. It is however, very hard to credit things with the notion that because it might function as a hub we should keep it. (And there is always Wikitravel). JoshuaZ 08:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And the reason for this would be? Keep in mind that not even countries are inherently notable...JoshuaZ 01:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets all content policies. The sources provided are reliable, but of course they only cover a small amount of information. A merge might be a good idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it meet all content policies? The sources provided indicate that the school exists, which is a good start, but that's not what we're in the business of here. Additionally, since many of the sources are in fact direct from the school itself, I'm not sure they're exactly reliable in the way we define the term. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please there is no need to erase this at all Yuckfoo 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That in spite of a lack of reliable independent sources? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude the sources in there are fine. A source written by the subject about itself is considered acceptable per WP:SOURCE. Keep  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I suggest you look at WP:RS. In general, sources are considered most reliable when they are "independent." Indeed, the guideline says "multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability" - these sources do not pass this guideline by any stretch of the imagination. JoshuaZ 06:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] Really? WP:V says that Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources. Point taken regarding WP:SOURCE, but I'm not convinced that the self-published sources here are in fact relevant to the person's or organization's notability. They prove the school exists, which is a nice start, but they don't go much further than that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is all that matters however... the sources within the article prove its existance, back the content of the article up... what the hell else do we need a source for really? Are you guys claiming that some random person invented a school and then made up the web pages to prove its existance... I mean seriously. The sources are FINE for proving its existance and all data within the article.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even if WP:V were all that matters (which it isn't), this wouldn't meet it. And actually we have had hoax websites of a variety of insttitutions up before, including schools. Furthermore, even if you had a verification of its existence would you really be in favor of the one line article "Maurice And Everett Haines Elementary School is a school" or something like that? JoshuaZ 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be overly argumentative. This school has references with the Lenape Regional High School District, the New Jersey Department of Education, and the National Center for Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov) so I have zero doubt that it is real and it exists. Yamaguchi先生 06:29, 9 November 2006

I'm real and I exist. There's considerable proof of that fact, so can I have an article here? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare everyone the immature rhetoric. Yamaguchi先生 07:00, 9 November 2006

I'm just pointing out the problem here. That the school exists is great and wonderful, but Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a directory of everything that exists. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the multiple sources cited above and within this article ever find reason to write about you, please let me know and I will consider developing a Wikipedia article in your name. Yamaguchi先生 07:07, 9 November 2006

That's the point, the sources cited in the article are duty bound to report on the existence of the school. One of them is the school's own website, and the others are simply organisations (School Boards and the like) which mention a series of schools, much like the website of a club or society having a membership list. The existence of the school isn't in doubt, in other words. Neither is my existence in doubt, but it's not proven by anything that establishes my notability (just the standard birth certificate, passport, bank account etc). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many people at this point comes with multiple indepenent sources. For example, in many areas, birth certificates and marriage certificates are open to the public, thus giving many people automatically two independent sources. However, these sources like the above are trivial. This school does not have non-trivial independent sources. JoshuaZ 16:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 06:32, 9 November 2006
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unremarkable school Catchpole 12:38, 9 November 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.