Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen M. Jydstrup Elementary 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. JYolkowski // talk 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen M. Jydstrup Elementary School

Delete. NN elementary school. Does not meet the criteria under any of the proposed school guidelines. Yes, I did own a condo just up the street from the school. Vegaswikian 23:52, 11 November 2006

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google searches turned up nothing helpful. JoshuaZ 01:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another elementary school article. I've given up on fighting the inclusionist policies on high schools no matter how much I disagree, but elementary schools? This is completely non-notable and doesn't even meet the proposed guidelines which have not yet been made policy because many feel they are too inclusionary, or so I believe. If the proposed guidelines are still considered too inclusionary by many and this doesn't even fit into those guidelines, shouldn't it go? --The Way 07:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This school is so non-notable that is notable in its non-notability. D e nni ☯ 18:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no sourcing in the article, and no claims to encyclopedic notability in the article, it certainly has no claims to notability that are established from independent reliable sources. GRBerry 22:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article at this point does not meet the WP:SCHOOL criteria. The fact that the deletion cycle was kicked off a mere 26 minutes after the article was created, for the second article created by this user, is a rather egregious example of WP:BITE, with no effort made whatsoever to guide the user to improve the article. Allow some time for a more comprehensive article to be created before jumping down a new user's throat. Alansohn 04:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually not WP:BITE. This apparently is the result of a class project. It does not seem to be from the school but at some higher level of school. Some professor apparently had this great idea without doing his research. Vegaswikian 06:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Elementary schools rarely have professors. And how did you figure this all out in 26 minutes from the time the article was created? If you didn't know this in advance, how can you justify destroying an article from a new user that hadn't even made it for a half-hour? Alansohn 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe because the author left a note on his talk page saying "WE WERE DOING THESE ARTICLES FOR AN ASSIGNMENT THROUGH OUR MASTERS PROGRAM." [caps intact]? Remember to assume good faith, please. Shimeru 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - An interesting theory, but unsupported. The author of this article has no content on their talk page, nor is there any rlevant content on the author's talk page. All the more surprising that it was not mentioned in the AfD nomination. Again, was this known in the 26 minutes between the time the article was created and the deletion train was put into motion. Alansohn 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        My apologies for the indeterminate pronoun. The comment was left on Vegaswikian's talk page. And just to ensure you don't go there, glance at it, find nothing, and come to the wrong conclusion again, it was subsequently removed; check the page's history and you'll find it. Shimeru 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please school should be notable the communities it serves and surrounding area Yuckfoo 19:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of importance, no sign that any independent reliable sources exist. Shimeru 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominating an article for deletion within 3 hours of creation is flat out rude. See WP:BITE. As for the content of the article, it is perfectly verifiable, and multiple sources are now cited with thanks to Yuck. If there are any other problems with the article (policy problems) please let me know, I'd be glad to be of assistance. Silensor 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the fact that it was nominated 26 minutes after being doesn't matter; elementary schools, quite frankly, almost are never notable enough. It's been a couple of days now, it still establishes no notability. --The Way 06:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Silensor, what criterion of WP:SK does this AfD meet so as to warrant a speedy keep? -- Kicking222 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor. --Vsion 04:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, several of which I authored. Un focused 07:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Every source cited is a directly listing and/or has very basic statistical info. The sites listed contain info on all public schools. Thus, the article has ZERO non-trivial citations, and as a result (and in addition to otherwise asserting no notability), does not meet any of the requirements needed to retain an article. -- Kicking222 15:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep see unfocused -- good article!!! Audiobooks 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability or importance, per VW. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 21:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no assertion of notability. Eluchil404 11:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moreover, I would say nominating articles for deletion up to a month old is down right rude -- Librarianofages 21:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rather shortsighted to call every newpage patroller on Wikipedia "rude," don't you think? Shimeru 22:57, 16 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.

comment Perhaps we need to reflect on the nature of their work. -- Librarianofages 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]