Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District

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 KEEP. Non-admin closure Based off discussion here, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartselle City School District. While I can't speak for the many other stubs that have little to no content, this one clearly does and has been expanded to bring it easily up to a passing standard. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District

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

i dont think elementary school districts qualify for articles, esp. sub stubs with information suitable for lists or directories. unofficially included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartselle City School District. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another duplicate AfD. Do you like adding to Wikipdia's paperwork? Again, for the record, US school districts are generally governments with taxing and legislative authority devolved to them by their respective sovereign states. None of the districts that I've added are dependent school districts without their own taxing, spending, and regulatory authority. For example, in my own state of Indiana, the public school district of residence issues under 18 work permits whether or not the child is in school. They are the only body that handles that. This sort of regulatory power over all children in their districts make school government bodies notable even when they only teach K-8 as seems to be the case here. TMLutas (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do believe that school districts ought to have articles, as I've explained in greater detail in related debates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonoma County, California; subject appears to not have recieved significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources. Subject has received mention in one news article source, and a few passing mentions in primarily government publications, however those mentions don't add up to notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORG, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - school districts as official bodies are notable and as a repository for information on non-notable elementary schools this article serves a valuable purpose. They way forward is to expand and source, not to delete, which is the way that stubs and hence the encyclopaedia is developed. TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TMLutas and TerriersFan. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost 500 articles in just one of the (unusually large number of) local newspapers mention this district.[1] WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2013 (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.