Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strongsville City School District: Difference between revisions

Strongsville City School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Notability. Docmoates (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep. Obviously passes WP:ORG. Multiple WP:Secondary sources on more than one topic with WP:SUSTAINED coverage since the 1970s with a highly-cited (and controversial) book banning court case.

• Minarcini v. Strongsville City School District at MTSU [1]
• Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality [2]
• ACLU [3]
• Cleveland Magazine [4]
• AdvanceLocal Cleveland.com [5]
• AdvanceLocal Cleveland.com [6]
• WOIO-Cleveland 19 [7]
• WKYC-NBC [8]

Revolving Doormat (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By this argument, anyone who files a lawsuit would be notable for purposes of creating an article. Docmoates (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, by this argument any organization that passes the criteria in WP:SIRS would qualify per WP:ORG. Revolving Doormat (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reread the policy. Docmoates (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The keep rationale is procedural and speculative, not evidence of notability. WP:BEFORE is advice to nominators, but even if it was not followed perfectly, it does not create notability or require keeping an article.

At AfD the question is whether there is ‘‘demonstrated’’ significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources about the subject itself (WP:SIGCOV, WP:V). Right now the discussion (and the article) does not present those sources.
“Many potential sources can be found” is not enough. The burden is on those arguing to keep to provide the sources now (WP:BURDEN, WP:PROVEIT). Wikipedia is not based on what might be found later.

Quick Google News/Scholar hits are often routine coverage like announcements, sports scores, directories, rankings, brief news mentions, or press-release rewrites. Routine and trivial coverage does not establish notability (WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS). As in this case most of the coverage are announcements, school closings, etc.

If editors later locate multiple independent, in-depth sources about the district, it can be recreated with proper referencing. Absent that, deletion (or at least redirect/merge to a broader local education article) is the policy-consistent outcome.

Finally, I would ask that @EurekaLott you not make comments about what I did or did not do when you simply do not know. That is speculative and has no place. Docmoates (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, turning up reliable sources about the school district was trivially easy. I can only assume that you didn’t attempt to find any.

In addition, there’s already a separate article about the Strongsville City Schools 2013 Teacher Strike that could be summarized or merged into the article about the district. – Eureka Lott 00:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re going to continue being disrespectful since you have no idea what I did or did not do. Should I make assumptions about who you are or what your behavior is? That’s uncalled for. If you have so many reliable sources, why are you not working to fix the article? See: Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? which states “Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.” Docmoates (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The focus should be on the concerns and the article not any individuals behavior. Docmoates (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now here are problems with the list you cite:

Strong for basic facts (reliable, but mainly primary data)

• NCES “District Directory Information”: Reliable for directory style facts (enrollment, staffing, locale), but it is essentially government dataset style information, so it helps verification, not notability.
• Ohio School Report Cards: Reliable for performance metrics and official district info. Same limitation: great for facts, not a notability pillar by itself.

Good secondary coverage for the district

• Cleveland.com pieces (rebuilding project; student drug testing; 2015 school moves): Generally the right kind of source for notability and article content if the pieces are substantive and about the district itself, not just passing mentions. Whether they qualify as “significant coverage” depends on how in-depth each article is about the district.

BLP and undue weight issues

• News 5 Cleveland teacher whiteboard story and 19 News teacher award: These can be reliable for what they report, but they are centered on individuals. If you use them in a district article, keep it proportional and avoid turning the district page into a “teacher incident” page. Also be cautious about including names/details of non-notable individuals and any contentious claims.

Not good for “facts” without attribution, and not for notability

• CAIR press release: This is a self-published advocacy document. It is fine for “CAIR said X” with clear attribution, but it is not an independent secondary source and should not be used to establish disputed facts or to carry notability.

Tertiary summary is fine support, but prefer primary law plus high-quality secondary analysis

• Free Speech Center summary of Minarcini: Often fine as a tertiary overview, but for an article you typically want to cite the actual court opinion and or scholarly commentary where appropriate. It is also not a notability source for the district.

Notability

• For notability (WP:ORG / WP:GNG logic): your list is headed in the right direction, but the notability weight will mostly come from the independent, secondary, in-depth reporting about the district, not the NCES report card style pages, and not the press release. At the moment, it appears you have provided one good source of secondary coverage which does not meet the standard.

Docmoates (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please truncate this? It looks/reads like it was generated with a WP:LLM. Revolving Doormat (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not. See my user page if you are confused. Docmoates (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can you please add some sort of hide/show mechanism to this? This is unduly lengthy and makes this page hard to see where the arguments are because of all of the formatting on it. I stand by my statement. Revolving Doormat (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome to standby your statement all you like, but it violates WP:AGF. I’m not going to hide my comment simply because you claim (without evidence) that it is LLM. You clearly don’t understand how someone who is neurodivergent can sound like LLM and you should research rather than being discriminatory. Docmoates (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]