Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight way school
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 of the debate was KEEP. -Doc (?) 11:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly just finishing incomplete nomination. However, given that the entire content, once the external link and the mission statement from their website is removed, would be "Straight Way School in West Covina, California is an Islamic school and mosque on a single lot. Contact information is as follows: 1912 West Merced Ave West Covina, CA 91790", it seems to lack enough content to be worth keeping. Seems like Cleanup at the bare minimum. Waterguy 17:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possible vanity. Definitely nn. Powers of i 17:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)See Below for vote change[reply]- Keep, an important component of Islamic education in West Covina, California and also per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 22:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for people who complain about boring mission statements: they aim to "Provide well-planned secular subjects (Math, Science, etc) to the student which protects them from the unethical curriculums." and to "Protect the caravan of the school from any one (hypocrite) who tries to cripple it's noble mission". Kappa 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At this stage, there is not sufficient sources to verify the school is licensed, or any info about the school. So, it doesn't yet qualify for inclusion. Hopefully that will be fixed. --rob 23:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "being licensed" have to do with it? It is verifiable - that is the only criteria for this encyclopedia. WP is not the government.--Nicodemus75 23:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If a school is licensed, information about it is collected, monitored, and verified by the government. The government is our reliable source in such a case. We need at an absolute minimum one reliable source of information. The school's web site, is not reliable or impartial. It's a private site. The complete lack of verifiable on information has already caused a problem with editing, since the school's claim to accept regardless of creed is highly dubious, yet we have no way of checking this. A licensed school would have any mandatory admission rules stated in its license (or charter), and we could check what that rule is. In this caes, the school can say anything, and we can't challenge it. --rob 23:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be the case with claims or details about the school, but that has little, if anything to do with the existence of the article on WP itself (and the point of the AfD process). The website has photos, extensive information which is easily verifiable through a websearch and white page/yellow page listings. If you want to debate the inclusion of it's admission rules or other specifics is not a question appropriate to AfD which deals with the existence of the article itself.--Nicodemus75 23:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If a school is licensed, information about it is collected, monitored, and verified by the government. The government is our reliable source in such a case. We need at an absolute minimum one reliable source of information. The school's web site, is not reliable or impartial. It's a private site. The complete lack of verifiable on information has already caused a problem with editing, since the school's claim to accept regardless of creed is highly dubious, yet we have no way of checking this. A licensed school would have any mandatory admission rules stated in its license (or charter), and we could check what that rule is. In this caes, the school can say anything, and we can't challenge it. --rob 23:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "being licensed" have to do with it? It is verifiable - that is the only criteria for this encyclopedia. WP is not the government.--Nicodemus75 23:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- An Islamic school in California sounds interesting. So I choose Keep Honbicot 23:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search reveals [1] which lists the schools affiliation as Jewish. No idea if this is erroneous, but I must say that Nicodemus75's assertion that "It is verifiable - that is the only criteria for this encyclopedia." is basically false, and it is unclear whether he/she is referring to Wikipedia policy for inclusion in general or the more specific Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep referenced above, which is admittedly more open about how/why schools should be added. Given that its already engendered quite a bite of relevant discussion, I now vote Keep with Strong Cleanup.Powers of i 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that's an amazing mistake on the part of privateschoolsreport.com. I'll need to double-check articles using them as a "source". This shows the danger of us relying entirely on non-authoritative sources. Also, I have to say, mentioning a place in a bus list is not good enough either. Verification is still missing here. --rob 03:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verifiably exists and is a school in the location indicated.--Nicodemus75 06:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, no assertion of notability. Moreover, this is a private elementary school and there's not even enough info to tell what religious curriculum is being taught. That's three strikes, as far as I'm concerned. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and please stop systemic bias it is not healthy for a growing encyclopedia Yuckfoo 22:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it systemic bias to want to delete a school in California? Nobody nominated this because it's an Islamic school; indeed, if they were unusual in the US or in the region, that might be a reason to keep this article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, this is a valid and interesting article. Silensor 18:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, less then 100 student, private elementary schools with minimal verifiabilty have no business in this encyclopedia. Please stop creating these clutter articles.Gateman1997 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. As per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 04:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Inherently not not notable. Keep. --Centauri 06:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep... and Centauri. (grins) Obviously this article needs more work... so take it to cleanup. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete and as not notable. Either now, or when notability finally becomes a reality, it's only a matter of time. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In the end you may crush us with your iron fist, but until then every second we can preserve an NPOV encyclopedia is worth it. Kappa 09:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Viva la revolucíon! If you don't laugh at this, you're taking these debates too seriously. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The party likes you, Kappa. So when it happens, we promise to make the end quick and painless.
brenneman(t)(c) 09:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- It's all fun and games for deletionists, but in the end we are giving up our time to try and give people what they would want access to, not want you want to dole out to them. Kappa 09:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for being droll. You'll note that I am also spending my time doing what I think best for the project. And please do not refer to me as a "deletionist", it's reductive and insulting. - brenneman(t)(c) 09:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletionist, inclusionist, unionist, onionist, votes-based-on-the-voices-in-his-head-ionist, everyone needs a laugh sometimes. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not at risk of having wasted all the time you spent building and improving articles because someone's POV is that the information is not "notable" enough to share. You voluntarily choose to waste your time and ours in these repetitive votes, and in the end you hope to destroy all that we have built. Your elite wikipedia will always be available by technical tweaks, you have nothing to lose and we have everything. Kappa 15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All the more reason to calm down, breath, and laugh. (Maybe you'd like a slice of Midwestern Puppymelon.) I'd hate to have someone who clearly feels so strongly about the subject end up burning out before the worst of the tensions and sniping can be defused to pave way for a WP:MUSIC-style compromise on school articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- this is not funny we need a wp:city type of compromise that makes more sense to me Yuckfoo 21:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not at risk of having wasted all the time you spent building and improving articles because someone's POV is that the information is not "notable" enough to share. You voluntarily choose to waste your time and ours in these repetitive votes, and in the end you hope to destroy all that we have built. Your elite wikipedia will always be available by technical tweaks, you have nothing to lose and we have everything. Kappa 15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all fun and games for deletionists, but in the end we are giving up our time to try and give people what they would want access to, not want you want to dole out to them. Kappa 09:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The party likes you, Kappa. So when it happens, we promise to make the end quick and painless.
- Viva la revolucíon! If you don't laugh at this, you're taking these debates too seriously. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In the end you may crush us with your iron fist, but until then every second we can preserve an NPOV encyclopedia is worth it. Kappa 09:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete --redstucco 09:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Excellent stub, interesting subject. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:57, 27 October 2005 (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.