Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridgecrest Intermediate 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 redirect. Rlendog (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgecrest Intermediate School

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

Pardon me if I have incorrectly tagged this article for AfD. Article is about middle school. Are middle schools notable? Comments invited. AKS 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District#Intermediate Schools. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Gene93. As a middle school it has to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, but it appears to be a run-of-the-mill middle school. Someone should also redirect Palos Verdes Intermediate School. The third middle school in the district, Palos Verdes Intermediate School, has already been redirected. MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect, not delete. This is what we do about 95% of the time for intermediate schools, except when there is some really important obvious factor of notability . The whole point of the school working compromise was to avoid bring all of these here--the situations are almost identical. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks. "Merge" should not be considered IMHO, as that would run contrary to wp:CHALLENGED. If this wholly uncited text were sourced with inline citations, it would be just as easy to recreate it at the target.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2012 (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.