Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. David School (Richmond, California)

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 to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 00:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. David School (Richmond, California)

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

I've been mulling over this for awhile, and have decided to go through with it. This school has been to AfD once before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. David School; it was several years ago and "No consensus" was the result. Since then, we've gotten tougher on verifibility, and a firmer consensus has emerged about the notability of schools. This is a non-secondary school (K-8), and it's generally held that only secondary schools are notable. The only exceptions are if a school is award-winning or has a wide depth of coverage. This has neither. It lacks reliable sources; the only sources it has are from its own website, and a fleeting mention of the school in a book that pays mention to the school's janitor (there is a chapter devoted to the janitor, but almost all of it focuses on his contributions aside of St. David). Bottom line: This article's in a gots-to-go situation Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland per established consensus that the vast majority of primary schools are not notable, with the exception of a very few of genuine architectural or historical significance. I live near Richmond, a city of wonderful people and a very sad economic climate, but standards are standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact is that this user has been mass nominating articles related to Richmond, California and has a persistent habit of following me to other articles and hassling editors every comment and edit with a new thread of unnecessary discussion.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep precedent is clear that all schools are notable. Just out of the Catholic Elementary schools in the United States there are 94 with articles at this time[1] So any deletion debate should be withheld until a strong policy has been developed on all of these and not just this one singled out from an editor that has appeared to follow my edits. It should also be kept because the school is notable on its own as it is also a junior high school and has been mentioned in a book and also in USA today.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this article is for some reason not kept then it should be merged with the diocese article.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue This article deserves to be rescued because it forms an important part of the history of Richmond, California and the neighborhood of Richmond Heights, Richmond, California and adjacent East Richmond Heights, California. The school won awards in excellence in the 90s and is the only catholic junior high in Richmond. It is a parish, day care center, former housing village for nuns, former convent, elementary school, neighborhood park for its playground and field and gardens, church, and event center. Schools are an important part of regional history and the school's existence is verified. Most elementary school's don't have their own websites but this one does. Also there are hundreds of articles about elementary and middle schools around the world, including 94 similar articles on Catholic primary schools so this one should not be singled out because one editor is on his nearly 20th nomination of a Richmond, California related article. Richmond is a poor community with social justice and criminal issues and is overlooked in its coverage elsewhere. There is no good history of this school anywhere else but all the sources come together here and are beneficial to Richmondites and all wikipedians.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this editor has !voted three different ways. Secondly, there is no precedent that "all schools are notable"...schools that don't go higher than the 8th grade are generally deleted. And there is a strong policy that K-8 schools don't need articles...consider that there are 94 articles on Catholic schools even though there are thousands of them in this country...and if you look, many of the articles tagged as "schools" are about the parish in general. I think rescue is completely inappropriate in this case...the article has been around for years, and hadn't been improved. The number of Richmond-related articles I have nominated is a) miscounted, and b) irrelevant. Richmond happens to have a lot of non-notable or borderline-notable articles that needed to be deleted. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is verified indeed by the US Geological Survey citation, and USA Today, Hard Ridin' and the school's website are all reliable sources for the school itself.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't actually. USA Today and USGS offer data for things regardless of notability; they cannot be used to determine it. Hard Timin' only mentions the school fleetingly. And by definition, the school's website is a primary source; notability must be established with secondary sources Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school is verified by the USGS, VERIFIED. USA Today and Hard Ridin' are reliable sources of the content which they cite, and also for the purposes of verification. Furthermore non-high schools are hardly ever noted in published works, something that makes this school notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please using all that bold text and repeating the word "verified". You are misusing the term. Just because USGS is a reliable source for geocoordinate data does not under any circumstance attest to its notability. You can be listed on USGS and not be notable; there are geocoordinates on USGS for places that have been deleted on Wikipedia; or could never be created because of NOTE and NOT concerns. There is an ongoing discussion about USA Today on the talk page, but a consensus is emerging that the page you link to can't be used to determine notability. And one fleeting mention in a published work does not make the school notable (and FYI, your statement about non-high schools hardly being mentioned is inaccurate) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify, the grammar used in your comments is riddled with split infinitives, fragments, false dichotomies and odd modifiers that make it painful to read. It remains a reliable source within the article for the schools existence. A point you have contradicted in the past.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No infinitives were split there. There is a difference between a reliable source and one that establishes notability Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland. There is absolutely no precedent that all schools are notable, despite the claim above. Unless there is something unique about this school, it fails school notability issues. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, delete: Simply put we don't need to work ourselves into a tizzy over the abstraction of "notability". There are NO SIGNIFICANT SECONDARY SOURCES - and that after 6 years - since we don't want an article that's no more than a summation of the organisation's website, remove it.--Scott Mac 09:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take a few points from the above contributions. The nom says "it's generally held that only secondary schools are notable", yet elsewhere we read that this school includes a junior high. Now, I'm no expert in US education, but it seems to me that a junior high is secondary. Therefore, the answer must be Keep on those grounds alone. OK, so there are issues with the independence of the sources and this may be an argument for editing here and there. Other contributors have commented on the importance of the school to the present and past of its locaality, but this is a somewhat nebulous argument and, without sourcing in the article, should not be part of this debate - the same could be said of just about any school, village hall, scout hut or bus shelter, but that does not in itself confer the notability we would want to justify an article. And I seriously question the statement that "Most elementary school's don't have their own websites but this one does." If that is true in the US it reflects a serious failing in the education system there but, that apart, having a web site is not and never has been a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Quite simply, if this school provides secondary education as a junior high, it's in. If not, it's out. Emeraude (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a secondary and primary school for those purposes. And there is precedent for keeping as there are hundreds of articles about junior highs and elementary schools. It may be a "failure" of the education system from your perspective but in the US most schools simply have a short information page on the school district's website and that's all. A school with it's own website even a high school is not that common and often unheard of for junior highs/elementary schools here. I am not saying that it makes it meet any criteria but I am saying it makes this school rather unique.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing unique about being a K-8 school. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Almost every Catholic elementary school in the country is K-8, to say nothing of thousands of non-Catholic schools. And having a website doesn't matter in the least. The only thing unique about this school is that you keep whining and ignoring Wikipedia policy and precedent in a attempt to save it. Let it go. Two editors (one of whom is a strong keepist) have said that the article is probably going to be deleted. Please, stop wasting community time and throw in the towel on this! Oh, and FYI, your "there are hundreds of other schools" a) is a false WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and b) ignores the fact that they might have different circumstances than this Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not really. Secondary education is grades 9-12, a junior high is grades 6-8 or 7-8. I don't think this school counts as secondary education; junior highs seem to be deleted or merged along with elementary schools Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Secondary education#United States which states that: "As part of education in the United States, secondary education comprises grades 6, 7, 8, and 9 through 12." It goes on to say that "Grades 9 through 12 is the most common grade structure for high school", but I am suggesting that the debate hinges on whether or not the school provides secondary education, not whether it is called a high school. Emeraude (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that; it appears that middle schools generally have the same outcomes as elementary ones. Quoting from Common AfD outcomes, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD" (emphasis mine). I think the "secondary" thing is more semantic than anything. Outcomes uses elementary, middle, and high rather than primary or secondary Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI, "middle school" and "junior high" generally refer to the same grades. Both include 7 and 8; middle also contains 6 Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary education#United States is wrong. The phrasing of that article tells me it wasn't written by an expert on educational systems, and I believe it is pretty much universal usage in the US that secondary is high school and junior high school is primary. I did a quick web search to make sure I'm not totally confused, and I'm not. High school is 9-12 or (not much anymore) 10-12. Junior high is 7-9, but not many exist anymore. Middle school is 6-8 or 7-8. The middle and junior high terms get interchanged a lot, probably because they're part of a school's name when the district reshuffles grades and they don't want to change the name of the school.Bryan Henderson (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National importance

As an encyclopedia history is very important and this is a nationally recognized school winning the "National Award for Excellence in Education" in 1985. Furthermore per WP:NRVE it should be kept as it has been mentioned numerous times in newspapers that I have seen framed in the school's main office. I believe the content is too old to easily find online but it is there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRVE isn't necessarily applicable in that schools' coverage is fleeting and routine; not the kind of thing you need to establish notability Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRVE is always applicable if the sources establish notability. Articles about the school itself are not routine passing mentions. Notwithstanding the school is of national importance due to its national award.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". I submit that the attention paid to the "National Award for Excellence in Education" now commonly called the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, is inadequate to demonstrate notability, as it is exactly "mere short term interest". Well over 5000 schools have won this award at one time or another, and it is the sort of thing that is mentioned in local newspapers at the time, and then promptly forgotten by everyone except those connected with the school, who probably display a nice plaque or a framed certificate on the wall near the principal's office. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the locality or the diocese if necessary. The sources being cited come nowhere near to meeting the GNG criteria for sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland. The sources listed in the article currently are absolute garbage; half of them are the school's own website and the other half are nonsense like a USGS listing and the school's USA Today environmental profile. I'm surprised that I didn't see a source that started with www.facebook.com/...." Chillllls (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richmond Heights, Richmond, California#Education where the school is already mentioned, according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland. Only indication of having notability towards inclusion in WP is its national award for excellence (blue ribbon school). I am not of the opinion that every school which wins an award like this should be included, and WP seems to agree in general, per Cullen 328. multiple awards for a middle school, maybe. any editors strongly desiring that this school have a listing should create their own website for the city of richmond to promote this and other less notable subjects. No one thinks that Richmond doesnt deserve to be completely documented and described for all to read, just not here. PS i dont think this article should be userfied, as it has been here, as its simply not notable, and if it becomes notable anytime soon, it would have to start off as a stub, not with all the content sourced from the schools site. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Richmond Heights, Richmond, California[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland education section per standard practice. I'd note that this diocese has enough educational institutions that its possible a breakout article could be created on Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland Schools, but no individual articles for middle or elementary schools are warranted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the diocese as above. There has been a lot of misquoting and misinformation above, regarding Wikipedia "policy" about schools. There actually isn't an official policy, but there is a long-established consensus which is stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, as follows: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD. 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. Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." In other words, the only schools given a "pass" as automatically notable are high schools (i.e., diploma-granting institutions serving students through 12th grade). The school under discussion here does not fall into that group. It appears to be a run of the mill school, not distinctive in any way and not having received unusual news coverage, and so it should be redirected. --MelanieN (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- my understanding is that while high schools are generally kept automatically, that is not the case for middle schools/junior high schools, grade schools, primary schools, and kindergartens.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland - don't see any convincing arguments above not to redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:12, 29 December 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.