Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Evergreen School (2nd nomination)

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 KEEP given the rewrite. I participated in this, but I'm pretty sure nobody's going to complain about me closing against my arguments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Evergreen School[edit]

Previously speedy deleted as a db-empty, but the deletion rationales applied to notability, which is a problem for this recreation. Morgan Wick 03:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Small school, NN. Being a school for gifted children doesn't make it notible unless it has notibly contributed to that genre of education.--Musaabdulrashid 03:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well I would say keep if it was a high school, but seeing as it is more of a primary school I say it's not significant enought for a wiki article. Popcorn2008 03:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. — Nathan (talk) / 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is directory entry and wikipedia is not a directory -- Koffieyahoo 04:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Weak keep looks a lot better after the rewrite. I can see some merit for wikipedia now. -- Koffieyahoo 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable information, notable as any other school. -- Visviva 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a uniquely notable school in Washington state, passes the verifiability test. Silensor 05:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article explained why it was "uniquely notable" it might have a better chance of surviving this AfD. Morgan Wick 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article has me excited to learn more about this interesting topic. Schools are notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable enough, like other schools. Metamagician3000 06:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability (or lack thereof) is not a valid deletion criterion for speedy deletion (of for any other deletion, for that matter). Notwithstanding, I find this school noteworthy and worthy of inclusion on wikipedia.--Nicodemus75 08:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you misread my nom? It was speedied because it was empty, not because it was nn. Its NN status was what the AfD debate focused on. And if I hear one more person pull that "notability guidelines aren't policy" line again my head will explode. Morgan Wick 08:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess this phrase isn't clear to me: "but the deletion rationales applied to notability".--Nicodemus75 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not the speedy deletion rationale. You're having trouble excoriating the original AfD and the speedy deletion (which happened spontaneously and was not brought up by anyone except the closing admin in the AfD).
  • Keep. This is not a recreation if the original article was empty, and the article that I see before me now looks like something worth holding on to. Yamaguchi先生 08:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor was I asking it to be speedied. I would have just tagged it with {{db-repost}} in that instance. "Recreation" does not always refer to the CSD definition. Morgan Wick 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick review: Previously speedy deleted as a db-empty. However, the rationales in the deletion debate leading up to that referred to notability. Notability is still an issue with this version. (And, ya know, you mighta avoided having any problems if you had happened to click on the link, right there, for the original AfD debate instead of trusting what I say all the time.) Morgan Wick 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This business fails WP:CORP. That's a page that does mention guidelines for notability and businesses. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Koffieyahoo, wikipedia is not a directory. There is no "verifiability test" policy that says that everything that is verifiable is encyclopedic. In fact WP:NOT is the policy that says not everything verifiable is encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The school project people frequently completely change an article on a school they favor during the nomination period. And I can see they won't do that for this school A business school should not be considered bad or more lowly than a public school. In this world there are all kinds of school to fit the changing population. So the new types of schools can't be notable? This seems strange to me. Jacks 12:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are multiple schools by this title, so, first, the article should not stay at this name unless it so completely whomps all the others in fame as to be a national term. it doesn't and isn't. Second, the article says that it is a school for gifted youngsters, which makes it just exactly like thousands of other private schools. The school may have a quality that makes it truly remarkable, but there is absolutely nothing in the article that suggests it. It's not too much to ask that authors of school articles obey the same strictures applicable to every other article on Wikipedia. Explain why this particular hotdog stand is more important than the next, why people need to have it explained. Geogre 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, not a public school but a private business, so it fails WP:CORP on that basis. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Doesn't this school have intelligence criteria for admission? I.e. the students must take a standardized intelligence test just to get in? I'd almost say that makes it more of an elite institution and so higher on the importance scale of things. But I could be mistaken. — RJH (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable school. Rohirok 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nicodemus75. --Tuspm (C | @) 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless some claim to notablitily can be established. I've lived in the area for almost three years, and I've never heard of this place; and I read the newspaper daily. Keep. Recent additions (chess team, geography bee champion) have put me into the notable camp. -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre Jaranda wat's sup 17:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This school has received considerable media attention for their positive environmental impact, and has received a Green Globe Award for creating wildlife habitats and restoring a nearby creek, amongst other related programs. Silensor 18:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cite some of this then. Morgan Wick 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Morgan the article has five citations right now, are you sure you've refreshed the page? Silensor 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't look at the article at all, I was looking for citation on the AfD page. I'm actually wavering on this right now. Morgan Wick 02:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate if kept... there appear to be many schools with this name; no reason this one should have the namespace as there is nothing extraordinary about it and Wikiproject Schools members should relish the chance to add more schools...--Isotope23 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguation is fine, but obviously I disagree with everything else you just said. [1] Silensor 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and as another longtime participant in AfDs I'm sure you know that I disagree with you on the basis that I don't believe in the concept of conferred notability. Having a student on a gameshow in no way makes this school any more entitled to the namespace than [2] or [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. Besides, isn't the cornerstone of the "keep all schools" mantra that all schools are notable?--Isotope23 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. School appears to have been the subject of nontrivial media attention from the Seattle Post link. If what several keep voters say above is true, it should be easy to find more information on the school's positive environmental impact. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's subject seems to be notable and its claims seem to be verifiable. --Myles Long 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article asserts notability, well referenced. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the outcome of the school wars. Gazpacho 19:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, uh what? maybe you didn't notice, but they are still going on...--Isotope23 19:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there was a period when people understood that it was useless to nominate schools. Apparently some are hoping that the keepers have become complacent or moved on, but they haven't. Gazpacho 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was that? I've been around for a year and a half now and except some odd days, schools have been getting constantly nom'd for AfD... besides, the fact that there was a period where nom's lulled isn't a reason to keep. I'd take a money wager that in another 1.5 years we will still be having this conversation.--Isotope23 19:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. It has become clear that there will never be agreement on the criteria for schools. Gazpacho 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good start to article. Improve --Usgnus 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. This means not nominating articles for deletion 3 hours after they are started. Bahn Mi 01:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, demanding that things be "truly remarkable" before we allow people to read about them is a betrayal of our ideals. Kappa 03:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Nope, they can read about them in the Yellow Pages. They just shouldn't be trying to read about them in an encyclopedia, and being an encyclopedia is our first principle. Geogre 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Yellow Pages does not contain encylopedia articles, and does not aspire too. Also it is not freely available to every human being on the planet. You appear to be prepared to betray our desire to learn about the world in order to us a lesson about where to look things up. Kappa 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Yellow pages is as accessible as Wikipedia: if you have web access, you have access to the Yellow Pages of any city in the US. If you don't have web access, you don't have Wikipedia. Simply listing where things are is not learning about the world, and all that this article does is say that there is a business out there for education of those who need little. There is no indication, beyond that, that there is anything to describe, to explain. What is the explanatory power of this "article?" It answers the burning question of "What is the particular thing called The Evergreen School in this particular place," but no more. Is it THE Evergreen School or is it AN Evergreen School? The authors can't even be bothered to name their article accurately, and yet you would fight to preserve a description and call it an explanation? Geogre 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Article contains multiple assertions of notability. None in and of themselves are that convincing, but having any assertion of notability makes it head and shoulders above the average school article discussed here. GRBerry 16:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable school, allow to develop. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a well-written article that should be a model for other schools. If the article is this thorough after one day on Wikipedia, imagine what could be done in a whole week, or maybe even a month or two! Alansohn 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a nationally ranked chess team and other rewards. Hard to see how it doesn't meet WP:N. JoshuaZ 17:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. --Rob 18:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep almost a model article. Has a whole section on "Accolades and achievements". --JJay 04:05, 6 August 2006 (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/The_Evergreen_School_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138839752"