Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egalia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. slakr\ talk / 07:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egalia[edit]

Egalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School that gained a bit of fame for using gender-neutral pronouns. Apart from that, it's a non-notable preschool, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It got a big burst of coverage in 2011, and is pretty consistently referred to with a paragraph or so in articles written since then on the "hen" pronoun or on gender stereotypes and children. I note the weakness of the delete vote above. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I very rarely do "strong" !votes. Let's put aside all of the sources we know exist at least to some extent in Swedish-language sources just by virtue of this being a school. Preschools are not automatically notable, but we know there are going to be at least a few behind that language barrier. Putting those aside entirely, here are the sources I found in about 10 minutes of digging. Note that there's an extraordinary amount of coverage in high-profile international sources from 2011 and sufficient additional sources from 2012-2015 to make this a really easy keep. A subject does not, of course, have to match the amount of coverage it receives at a particular point in time in order for the "sustained" part of the WP:GNG to be met.
No. Majority are about gender neutrality in Sweden as a whole, and not about the preschool/kindergarten. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also no, the articles mention the school but are really about gender neutrality in general. And so I still don't think their "claim to fame" is notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a handful in there that only have a significant paragraph or two on the school, but there are no brief mentions whatsoever and many of them are about the school. But regardless, from the WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Are you really arguing that the sources above constitute "trivial mentions" of Egalia? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For your browsing pleasure, I have bolded the articles which are specifically about the school. All of the others merely talk about it in a significant way that would nonetheless still help it to pass WP:GNG. I've also removed any sources which only spend one whole paragraph on the school. What remain cover it either as the subject of the article or across multiple paragraphs. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your effort, but FYI, the majority of the 2011 articles appear to be the same AP story (or discussion of AP story) and per guidelines do not count multiple times. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to AGF here, but first you said the majority are about gender neutrality in general and not about the school. Even though WP:GNG explicitly states the article subject doesn't have to be the primary subject of the source, I bolded those sources which are about the school to highlight the opposite is true: the majority are about the school. Now you're saying the majority of the 2011 articles are the same AP story. Again, that's just false. CBS, Daily News, Sydney Morning Herald, Emirates, and HuffPo are indeed reprints of the AP source and so count as one. That's 5 out of 21 I listed for 2001 above. It's tricky when an article mentions an AP story, because you have to figure out if they're just doing a little rewording and thus effectively republishing it, or referencing it in a piece of original journalism. One or two additional fall into the first category, and a couple others fall into the second. Regardless, it's certainly not a majority, and we're only talking about the 2011 sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have to concur with the above. The coverage is going to be about a feature of the school. It's a noble aim, but it's not coverage of the school as a school or (yet) of its graduates and their effects on the wider school system, etc. In a decade or so, there will probably be some discussion of the school and its effects as well as its singular difference. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coverage of an aspect of the school is coverage of the school. Could you be more specific as to how it does not pass WP:GNG? The only question that matters is whether there has been significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that persists over a period of time. Coverage of graduates, the school system, etc. are irrelevant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies: If someone is commenting on the unique pedagogy of a school and only on its novelty, then that probably does not amount to coverage of the school. I know this is a judgment call, and I'm not totally comfortable with it, either, but this is an article on the school, rather than its reforms. That means, for me, that the article's coverage have to be examined carefully. Several elements -- founding, pedagogy, demographics, effects -- would be tantamount to showing that the school itself, rather than a technique it employed, was significant and notable. Let's face it: there are numerous schools, especially since the explosion of charter schools in the U.S., getting ink for novel pedagogy. To separate those that bloom and disappear from those that represent actual pedagogical innovation and an effect on the world at large, I feel that it takes careful assessment of the "coverage of the school" requirement. Hithladaeus (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of coverage as shown above. "fails the children who attend" is not grounds for deletion and suggests the first delete vote is at least partly from hatred of the school or of gender-neutral pronouns in general. Claiming the press coverage is about the pedagogy and not the school is hair-splitting: what is a school if not the process of pedagogy? (Well, possibly the building, but plenty of schools in architecturally mediocre buildings are notable.) If the pedagogy (unique to this school) is notable but the school somehow is not, then rename the article to Pedagogy of Egalia, but that would be ridiculous even by the standards of Wikipedia. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Egalia&oldid=1079659787"