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 delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piner-Olivet Charter School[edit]

Piner-Olivet Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article has become non-encyclopedic. The page has become a site for original research, students making this their school's webpage. Almost all information, save the bicycle safety, is unreferenced. — ERcheck (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Article fails WP:A policy. Specifically, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." (bold emphasis mine) — ERcheck (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the precedent has been to delete articles about middle schools, anyway. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Could use improving; isn't hopeless. Noroton 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a rather large article about a rather large and popular school. How the hell am i expected to get "references" for my stuff? There is no GOOD reason to delete this. Can i have some fishy crackers? 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could look around the internet, local newspapers, periodicals, etc. Get the drift? Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishy crackers, I've left a list of suggestions at the bottom of the article's talk page, together with a few links. Noroton 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be expanded, and it is a large school, i should know. IT IS A NOTABLE SCHOOL. i'm InvaderSora, not fishy crackers o_075.20.203.150 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Popularity" is not a criterion for inclusion. School size is also not a criterion (220 students is not a particularly large school). Does not meet WP:Verify. — ERcheck (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Noroton, and the fact that it does seem to be a popular school. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable school. Popularity has nothing to do with notability (and how are we supposed to see how popular it is anyways?). TJ Spyke 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I hate school pages, and if it were up to me, we'd get rid of them. But the criteria so far seems to be "are there enough students that it makes a big splash", and this one meets that requirement. Until I can convince enough people to run willy-nilly through the encyclopedia deleting ALL the school pages. (If you've never run willy-nilly, you really should try it). Philippe Beaudette 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable school that contains much original research. Removing the original research would leave very little content. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The criterion is not number of students. Some very small ones have been kept if there was anything much to say. This is an attempt at a real article, much fuller than yusual, and I would encourage such articles. The list of student leaders will have to be changed from year to year; since the information is of little value outside of the school, I would suggest editing this--and similar school articles--to remove such lists. DGG 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't keep articles just because someone has attempted to create a "real" article. This makes no sense at all. --- RockMFR 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no different from any other school, probably created by pupils, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people mentioned on the page would object to having thier names published; no need to put Wikipedia in a position where it could attract controversy
• Merge into a higher-level article or delete it, as this school has no notability from a national (or even state-wide) perspective. It does not appear to pass Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, nor is it a significant aspect of a larger project (such as a travel guide). It should be merged, along with others, into a higher levels article such as Californian middle schools or List of Californian middle schools. –Gunslinger47 17:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I created this account with my old account, even though I switched accounts. I am an alumni of this school, and when the article started, it was a strong school article, but had no sources about events, etc. Now, this article has been used just for student gossip and rumors between students. Like ERcheck stated, almost all information within this article is unsourced, and it looks like the information will stay unsourced because due to its small size, there are not a lot of reliable information to support the claims made by users and editors of this article. I've tired to fix up this article many times, but it has become pointless, due to constant reverting and the lack of reliable information. I think that this article doesn't help the Wikipedia community at all, and it would help if this article was deleted. Chickyfuzz14 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - Efforts have been made to mentor/guide editors of this article to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policy. However, the article continues to grow with non-encyclopedic, blog-like details, without references. It seems to be an open playground for current students. If the article is kept, all unreferenced material should be deleted. — ERcheck (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I agree very much, but even if the result is keep, and all the unsourced information was deleted, there would 1. be no article, since there is almost no sourced information and 2. be reverting like crazy, unless the page was protected, but I don't think that is the answer. I know I have, including ERcheck (I think) reverted unsourced information at one point, but the unsourced information just gets reverted again, and again. Chickyfuzz14 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is in ways a violation of WP:SCHOOL but if the trivia section, enrichment and teachers section were removed and the break bit made into a sub-section it would be fine.Aquasplash 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:SCHOOL: "A school may be best handled in a separate article if it is the principal subject of multiple reliable independent non-trivial published works. If it is not, then it is likely that sufficient information to expand the article does not yet exist, and any verifiable information might best be merged and redirected to an article about the locality or school district in which the school resides." Yeah, according to WP:SCHOOL, this should be merged, since there is only one article about bike riding privileges. –Gunslinger47 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No apparent notability - if Wikipedia had articles for every school it would almost double in size! Frickeg 01:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sign of notability. If there is, please provide info on it. JackSparrow Ninja 01:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Could someone explain to me why it's a big deal that students can ride their bike to school, which seems to make this somewhat notable? JackSparrow Ninja 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bike riding isn't necessarily notable. The bike riding issue had been put into the article by a former student. It the only verifiable information in the article, with the exception of the basic existence of the school. There was only the single reference to this incident. — ERcheck (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I mean... why is bike riding an issue at all? Everyone rides their bike to school... JackSparrow Ninja 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I thought most students took a bus to school. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's an American thing then. In Europe (almost) everyone takes the bike. Making a whole deal out of taking the bike to school just seems really really really odd to me. Ah well. Thanks for clearing that up. JackSparrow Ninja 02:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a legal issue, actually. If the school is across a busy road, the school is required to provide a bus for the student, even if they live a block away. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is was (I was one of the students that got bike riding approved) was that when POCS was first created, bikes couldn't be rode to school due to a high schooler in Santa Rosa who got killed riding his bike to school the same year the school district was trying to get POCS approved to be built, so the city was all like, "We don't want another kid getting hit, so students can only walk." It still doesn't make sense to me, but w/e. And buses only go to a couple streets in the area, so most kids walk. So yeah, hope that clears up this debate....Chickyfuzz14 03:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge but this is not a keep vote. If the only reference is to being able to ride a bike to school, then it clearly fails WP:N and WP:SCHOOLS. The directory information needs to be removed, and are breaks and minimums encyclopedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Butseriouslyfolks (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment- LARGE ARTICLE. lots of googlehits. Can i have some fishy crackers? 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Large article doesn't matter. Content is what matters. A large article can be written bad, just because it is written bad, or has bad spelling/grammer.

2. Do any of those Google hits back up the claims made in this article, or satisfiy WP:N or WP:SCHOOLS?

Chickyfuzz14 04:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - This article is slightly childish, but it deserves to stay. SMBarnZy 11:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability I can see. --- RockMFR 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Not notable, until proven otherwise. --Keesiewonder ^talk 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- 1) There are two faculty members for 220 students? More than two teachers are mentioned in the text ... ??? 2) Please consider providing a better photograph of the school. There's little to be seen in the current one. Keesiewonder ^talk 02:00, 14 March 2007 (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.