900:(Search on "Nationally famous local organizations") I'd address the rest of your comments, but they seem to amount to huffing and puffing over Knowledge (XXG)'s educational agenda. Look: if there's Redirect and Merge, pretty much the same material will still be available, just in another (hardly unrelated) article. So what's the difference, "educationally"? If the result is Delete, how wouild that deletion block anyone else on the internet from googling on "Crocker Highlands Elementary School" and getting the very first link they get now: the website for that school? How does it prevent anyone from searching Google News on the same terms?
51:. Col. Warden makes a valiant effort, but which is still insufficient. I must say that the "Speedy keep" vote is appropriate; what should have happened is that this AfD is speedy closed and a merge discussion takes place on the talk page. As for the specific arguments: Having previously survived an AfD is not a reason for keeping. The quality of the merge target is also unimportant. And the sources are local, which would be typical of any elementary school.
476:. Article cites multiple third-party reliable sources (dating from 1929 to 2008) about various aspects of the school. The school community's involvement in responding to the shooting of a student and its being the center of an effort to encourage more people to send their kids to public schools appear to me to be indicators of significance. Most of the various "keep" reasons provided in
372:, and merge if possible. Our established practice is that primary schools are not generally notable apart from exceptional circumstances, and that we offer the compromise of salvaging what we can and merging and redirecting. A well written article, however much written in GF, does not make its subject notable. To make an exception would risk creating a precedent for
281:. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." That is consistent with the nomination. Also, the target article for redirect,
650:
Your claim that the topic is not notable is counterfactual - the article before us has better sources than the merge target you favour which is a pile of junk. DGG's proposal is even worse because he proposes that this article, sources and all, be deleted completely. This is quite contrary to the
497:
the reasons were essentially sympathy for a well-written article. But there's still only a description of the building, and routine coverage by local papers of new principals, That's not enough fto break the usual rule that elementary schools are not individually notable unless there's something
456:" rganizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school ) may be notable if there is substantial outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."
302:
The general policy is that elementary/primary/first schools are not in themselves sufficiently notable to justify their own entry. There can be exceptions, but there is nothing in the article to suggest exceptional notability here. Improving the school district article seems a good idea.
546:
Agree with DGG. It's already been stated that being well-written does not make it notable. Sympathy, unfortunately, is not a recognised AfD argument. I'm nevertheless still offering the compromise that we merge what we can to the school district or locality and leave a redirect.
616:"barter" deal (if such it was), and I would be willing to fight that policy battle wherever is most appropriate. I also don't like talk of "compromise" when application of principle suffices. But here is not the place to hash those things out. That's not what's at stake
524:. The idea that an article of this sort should be sacrificed to appease some party to the bizarre deal which you describe seems preposterous. Shall we start bartering asteroids for comets or sub-species for breeds? It is well established that editors do not
816:
calls, in this case, for more than merely regional coverage. This school hasn't gotten that. Also, the "proposed alternative" is the school district article, which, when this article is merged into it, will have at least the same sources, if not better.
92:
694:
article's notability that it might have better sourcing than its candidate merge target. We're under an obligation to improve the merge target, too, so the fact that this article is better sourced only means that such a merge would improve
Knowledge (XXG)
185:
272:
That is a specious argument for speedily keeping this article. The nomination said it had "no indication of notability," beyond run of the mill local and routine coverage. Lack of notability is the basis for most deletions in AFDs.
498:
truly exceptional. The other side of the coin for accepting the notability of high schools was the restriction on elementary schools, and I'm equally opposed to destroying either side of one of our few working compromises.
216:
Typical elementary school, with no indication of notability, beyond things like new principals over the years. Elementary school articles are usually redirected to a collective article about the school district, in this case
458:
Even the most prominent event in this school's history -- a shooting incident in early 2008-- was reported only in neighboring counties besides its own (e.g., Contra Costa, San
Francisco) in the same metropolitan area.
477:
87:
880:
If, by "this", you mean "this discussion," please note that you may be disrupting progress toward improving the article about the school district, since the useful content in this AfD article might be merged there.
757:
My meaning is that your statements are contrary to the facts; they are mistaken, false and incorrect. Notability depends upon sources and this topic has better sources than the proposed alternative. Your talk of
774:, on the other hand, is a policy and arguments based upon it therefore stronger than such stuff. Regarding disruption, please note that this is "disrupting progress toward improving an article". Note also that
786:
which is both disruptive and uncivil. Knowledge (XXG) has an explicitly educational mission and so it seems disgraceful that articles about respectable educational institutions should be harassed in this way.
685:
in the face of a wall of Delete/Redirect/Merge votes, some of them argued closely from guidelines, is an extraordinary claim). As for your rationale, it's as weak, if not weaker, than your citation of
655:
and seems instead to be in support of some hostage deal which he has made with other parties. That deal does not seem to represent general policy as one is not cited and so is a weak argument.
376:
arguments. I've started a clean up of the school district page for use s a possible destination for a merge, otherwise the page can be simply redirected to the existing list of schools.
179:
735:
is inapplicable? You still haven't even touched on that yet. And the more you avoid it, the more likely you'll be accused of disruptive editing on this AfD. So consider addressing it
277:
says "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail
119:
114:
123:
146:
778:
states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". This topic has already been through AFD and got a clear result of
106:
322:
707:
rationalizations in other AfD discussions, further bogging them down. Your argument seems to be based largely on how the resulting merge would "look". There is no policy
274:
348:
384:) 01:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)BTW: If this article is pruned and copyedited to remove the non essential banter, there won't actually be too much to have to merge.
681:), you still need to say why, in order for your vote to have any real weight in this AfD discussion. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a
703:
ways: (1) the merge target gets better sourcing and more information, and (2) a non-notable school no longer has its own article, which could only attract more
222:
909:
796:
748:
664:
641:
556:
537:
509:
489:
468:
431:
393:
363:
337:
312:
294:
264:
234:
71:
110:
200:
167:
572:) is headed "Try to fix problems", not "We should keep every article that's well-written and well-sourced." The policy's first sentence is
425:
65:
677:". You seem to think it's a synonym for "wrong". If you think it's wrong to say the school is not notable under the relevant guideline (
610:"Instead of deleting text, consider merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect ..."
612:, which is precisely what some others (including myself) advocate above. As for the other issue raised -- personally, I don't like the
102:
77:
840:, not "essays", and my "talk" of them was entirely to point out that the default, given that neither of them cover the case here, is
161:
17:
157:
282:
252:
218:
47:
628:. If so, feel free to make your case from "common sense", for one of those "occasional exceptions", if you can. But please,
207:
847:
767:
932:
36:
876:, to show that it actually prescribes something more like Redirect and Merge, you ... simply ignore my reasoning.
766:
is weak because those are essays not policies and we prefer policy-based argument here. Their essence is that of
690:
when that policy actually indicates
Redirect and Merge in this case, if not outright Delete. It's irrelevant to
173:
255:, looks far worse than the current article and so the proposed action would make our content worse, not better.
931:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
887:
states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."."
792:
660:
533:
420:
260:
60:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
285:, can be edited if problems are found. It seems far superior to the average article about a school district.
704:
373:
712:
624:
appears to be the applicable guideline, and we should stay on track with it. It seems this school fails
873:
863:
806:"My meaning is that your statements are contrary to the facts; they are mistaken, false and incorrect."
771:
715:) that perfection is not required. Notability for an article's subject, on the other hand, definitely
687:
652:
605:
604:
This does not necessarily entail wholesale removal of the article text from
Knowledge (XXG). In fact,
569:
520:
308:
905:
878:"Regarding disruption, please note that this is "disrupting progress toward improving an article"."
788:
744:
656:
637:
529:
464:
415:
412:
256:
193:
55:
52:
829:
820:
810:"Notability depends upon sources and this topic has better sources than the proposed alternative."
759:
724:
632:
by putting words in the mouth of policy that doesn't actually say what you clearly imply it says.
447:
403:
866:, on the other hand, is a policy and arguments based upon it therefore stronger than such stuff."
552:
389:
381:
359:
333:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
580:. But it can't stay flagged that way forever. If AfD discussion concludes that there is no
812:
Notability depends not only on sources, but the quality and relative reach of the sources.
485:
290:
230:
894:
884:
857:
841:
833:
824:
813:
775:
763:
732:
728:
720:
678:
625:
621:
613:
581:
525:
451:
443:
897:
changed significantly since then, in its applicable parts? It seems so -- see diffs here
783:
304:
682:
599:
244:
827:
is weak because those are essays not policies and we prefer policy-based argument here."
901:
740:
674:
633:
460:
587:
577:
278:
505:
548:
385:
377:
355:
329:
251:". Also, the article has been previously Kept at AFD. Also, the proposed target,
576:
The problem that apparently can't be fixed in this case has already been flagged:
140:
584:
notability, the time for "flag" is over, and the time for "remove" has arrived.
528:
articles and so these articles are not your property to trade or negotiate with.
481:
286:
226:
852:
No, their "essence" for our purposes, if you'll bother to look, amounts to the
719:
required. So it's back to the core issue. That is, how does this school pass
406:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
893:
The first AfD for this article was a while back: in early March, 2008. Has
518:
As the article is well-written and sourced, it should be kept — this is our
93:
Articles for deletion/Crocker
Highlands Elementary School (2nd nomination)
889:
Yes, but note the immediate context: the case of repeatedly renominating
500:
478:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Crocker
Highlands Elementary School
568:
Colonel Warden, the policy you link in your argument-from-policy (
925:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
275:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Common outcomes# Education
574:"Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't."
249:
The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion
88:
Articles for deletion/Crocker
Highlands Elementary School
898:
136:
132:
128:
192:
711:
about article esthetics; in fact, it's emphasized (
411:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
206:
590:, the only way to remove the problem is to remove
699:(not as a work of fine literature; see below) in
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
935:). No further edits should be made to this page.
594:Nothing else logically follows from this policy
323:list of California-related deletion discussions
223:List of Oakland California elementary schools
8:
770:which is a notoriously weak argument here.
349:list of Schools-related deletion discussions
221:, which has a list of elementary schools at
850:which is a notoriously weak argument here."
782:. Trying to delete it again is a form of
343:
317:
225:, which includes mention of this school.
347:: This debate has been included in the
321:: This debate has been included in the
85:
808:Or in a word of one syllable: wrong.
673:Colonel, I think you need to look up "
844:. Which you still fail to address.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
860:, which you still fail to address.
454:, from which we have this passage:
103:Crocker Highlands Elementary School
84:
78:Crocker Highlands Elementary School
24:
283:Oakland Unified School District
253:Oakland Unified School District
219:Oakland Unified School District
48:Oakland Unified School District
1:
910:09:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
797:07:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
749:04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
665:19:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
642:15:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
557:10:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
538:07:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
510:22:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
490:15:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
469:09:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
432:09:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
394:03:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
364:00:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
338:00:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
313:10:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
295:05:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
265:07:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
235:21:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
72:10:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
697:as an information resource
620:This is an AfD discussion,
480:also are still relevant. --
952:
846:"Their essence is that of
928:Please do not modify it.
598:cite in support of your
32:Please do not modify it.
586:In the case of failing
739:in your next comment.
83:AfDs for this article:
891:without much delay.
848:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
768:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
592:the article itself.
868:Yet when I reason
440:Redirect and Merge
44:The result was
434:
366:
352:
340:
326:
943:
930:
883:"Note also that
428:
423:
418:
410:
408:
353:
327:
211:
210:
196:
144:
126:
68:
63:
58:
34:
951:
950:
946:
945:
944:
942:
941:
940:
939:
933:deletion review
926:
784:double jeopardy
426:
421:
416:
401:
153:
117:
101:
98:
81:
66:
61:
56:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
949:
947:
938:
937:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
856:(not "essay")
819:"Your talk of
800:
799:
789:Colonel Warden
752:
751:
675:counterfactual
668:
667:
657:Colonel Warden
645:
644:
562:
561:
560:
559:
541:
540:
530:Colonel Warden
513:
512:
492:
471:
436:
435:
409:
398:
397:
396:
367:
341:
315:
297:
267:
257:Colonel Warden
214:
213:
150:
97:
96:
95:
90:
82:
80:
75:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
948:
936:
934:
929:
923:
911:
907:
903:
899:
896:
892:
888:
886:
879:
875:
871:
867:
865:
859:
855:
851:
849:
843:
839:
835:
831:
828:
826:
822:
815:
811:
807:
804:
803:
802:
801:
798:
794:
790:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
756:
755:
754:
753:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
723:, given that
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
705:WP:OTHERSTUFF
702:
698:
693:
689:
684:
680:
676:
672:
671:
670:
669:
666:
662:
658:
654:
649:
648:
647:
646:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
601:
597:
593:
589:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
564:
563:
558:
554:
550:
545:
544:
543:
542:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
517:
516:
515:
514:
511:
507:
503:
502:
496:
493:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
472:
470:
466:
462:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
438:
437:
433:
429:
424:
419:
414:
407:
405:
400:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:WP:OTHERSTUFF
371:
368:
365:
361:
357:
350:
346:
342:
339:
335:
331:
324:
320:
316:
314:
310:
306:
301:
298:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:verifiability
276:
271:
268:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
209:
205:
202:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
159:
156:
155:Find sources:
151:
148:
142:
138:
134:
130:
125:
121:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
94:
91:
89:
86:
79:
76:
74:
73:
69:
64:
59:
54:
50:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
927:
924:
890:
882:
877:
869:
861:
853:
845:
837:
818:
809:
805:
779:
736:
727:defaults to
716:
713:WP:IMPERFECT
708:
700:
696:
691:
629:
617:
609:
596:you yourself
595:
591:
585:
573:
565:
519:
499:
494:
473:
455:
439:
402:
369:
344:
318:
299:
269:
248:
240:
215:
203:
197:
189:
182:
176:
170:
164:
154:
45:
43:
31:
28:
874:WP:PRESERVE
864:WP:PRESERVE
772:WP:PRESERVE
709:requirement
688:WP:PRESERVE
653:WP:PRESERVE
606:WP:PRESERVE
570:WP:PRESERVE
450:amounts to
442:Except for
241:Speedy Keep
180:free images
838:guidelines
305:AJHingston
902:Yakushima
854:guideline
830:WP:SCHOOL
821:WP:SCHOOL
760:WP:SCHOOL
741:Yakushima
725:WP:SCHOOL
634:Yakushima
461:Yakushima
448:WP:SCHOOL
356:• Gene93k
330:• Gene93k
46:merge to
870:directly
737:directly
404:Relisted
370:Redirect
147:View log
651:policy
566:Comment
549:Kudpung
413:King of
386:Kudpung
378:Kudpung
270:Comment
186:WP refs
174:scholar
120:protect
115:history
53:King of
895:WP:ORG
885:WP:DEL
858:WP:ORG
842:WP:ORG
834:WP:NHS
825:WP:NHS
814:WP:ORG
776:WP:DEL
764:WP:NHS
733:WP:NHS
729:WP:ORG
721:WP:ORG
679:WP:ORG
626:WP:ORG
622:WP:ORG
614:WP:NHS
608:says,
582:WP:ORG
521:policy
495:Delete
482:Orlady
452:WP:ORG
444:WP:NHS
300:Delete
287:Edison
227:Edison
158:Google
124:delete
872:from
731:when
683:WP:SK
618:here.
602:vote.
600:WP:SK
506:talk
245:WP:SK
201:JSTOR
162:books
141:views
133:watch
129:links
16:<
906:talk
836:are
832:and
823:and
793:talk
780:Keep
762:and
745:talk
692:this
661:talk
638:talk
588:WP:N
578:WP:N
553:talk
534:talk
486:talk
474:Keep
465:talk
390:talk
382:talk
360:talk
345:Note
334:talk
319:Note
309:talk
291:talk
261:talk
243:per
231:talk
194:FENS
168:news
137:logs
111:talk
107:edit
701:two
630:not
526:own
501:DGG
354:--
328:--
247:, "
208:TWL
145:– (
908:)
795:)
747:)
717:is
663:)
640:)
555:)
536:)
508:)
488:)
467:)
446:,
430:♠
392:)
362:)
351:.
336:)
325:.
311:)
293:)
263:)
233:)
188:)
139:|
135:|
131:|
127:|
122:|
118:|
113:|
109:|
70:♠
904:(
862:"
791:(
743:(
659:(
636:(
551:(
532:(
504:(
484:(
463:(
427:♣
422:♦
417:♥
388:(
380:(
358:(
332:(
307:(
289:(
259:(
229:(
212:)
204:·
198:·
190:·
183:·
177:·
171:·
165:·
160:(
152:(
149:)
143:)
105:(
67:♣
62:♦
57:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.