Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Excel Charter Academy

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 Los_Angeles_Unified_School_District. Black Kite 00:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Charter Academy

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

Middle school with no assertion of notability. PROD contested by author. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Middle schools are generally not kept. tedder (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a few days The page was only created yesterday, and already you are nominating it for deletion? Give them a few days to flesh it out! --MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How will waiting make it eligible? tedder (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will give the creators time to add content and sources. --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that no amount of sources will change that it's a primary school. Unless it has a Blue Ribbon award or other high-level cert (which it doesn't appear to), it won't turn it into a notable primary school. tedder (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has certainly been ample time to gather evidence of notability, as the article was created twice in December 2009 by the same author. Besides, the AfD process usually takes a week, so it's not like we are rushing the article to deletion. Favonian (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been previous deletions? Shouldn't those previous discussions be linked here? --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't AfDs. One PROD resulted in the author blanking the article, and shortly afterwards a new attempt was made with (as far as I remember) only an external link to the school website, and that was speedied (A3). Favonian (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Los Angeles Unified School District which is the usual action with otherwise nn primary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Los Angeles Unified School District. (There are at least three schools by this name in the United States; this article is about the one in Los Angeles). I just added some more detail to the article, which was so minimal you couldn't even tell what city it was in, except by the telephone area code 323. However it still probably does not meet notability standards. Sorry, guys, I tried. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. First, let me say that, although I'm essentially a merge-ist, I don't think that merging to LAUSD (the second largest school district in America) is smart. There are more than six hundred schools in that district, and a significant majority are lower-grade schools that we'd defaultly describe in the district article instead of on separate pages. I could see creating an article about the charter school agency (PUC Schools or Partnerships to Uplift Schools) and writing about all eleven of their schools, or creating a Charter schools in Greater Los Angeles article (Excel was the 100th proposed in the district, so there will be no shortage of potential content), but dumping it in LAUSD doesn't seem reasonable.
Second, this particular school has received some non-trivial media attention: e.g., Spanish language media and LA Times (both conveniently reprinted on the schools' website). Even though the LA Times is their "local" newspaper, it's also the second-largest metro newspaper in the entire country, which I think argues in favor of it likely not having the usual "everything in our backyard" problem (=the primary reason we want some kind of non-local media coverage, especially where small town papers are concerned). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote to weak keep based on the coverage you found. I agree about the LAUSD article being impossibly huge, and I like the idea of creating an article Charter schools in Greater Los Angeles or List of charter schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District or something similar. I think with so many schools it would have to be a list, not an article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage found by WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) demonstrates that this middle school passes Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Los Angeles Unified School District. LAUSD may eventually become over run by its containing schools, but if and when that happens there should be a fork.--Tmckeage (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2010 (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.