Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palo Alto Montessori School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (and bicycle). Eugene van der Pijll 14:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palo Alto Montessori School[edit]

Completely non-notable preschool. Has no future potential for notability. Gateman1997 06:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Non-notable preschool. Gateman1997 06:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Presumably is of note to the community it serves. Philip Arthur 06:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Montessori school is of note to the community it serves. Montessori schools are not public schools, this is advertising of a commercial venture. Zoe 06:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course schools are of note to the community they serve. Wikipedia is not communist. Kappa 06:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with keeping public schools, but this is not a public school. Should we have an article on every Boys' and Girls' Club? They are probably more notable to a community than a Montessori school is. Zoe 06:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see why being public or commercial makes any difference to its notability, as opposed to perhaps its verifiability and our ability to be NPOV about it. Kappa 07:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Very few preschools are notable in a wikipedia sense. ManoaChild 07:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Schools/Arguments to Delete - brenneman(t)(c) 07:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Communist? Gamaliel 07:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I draw the line here. Schools are maybe OK to include in an encyclopedia, Preschools are not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there might be a handful of interesting and important preschools in the world. Not this one. Rkevins82 08:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Brenneman.--Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:04:35, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. I'd also like to ask: Communist? WTF? android79 10:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've expanded a bit, but in my opinion it's too trivial to stand alone at present and is unlikely to be expandable. There just isn't enough to write about a pre-school--no curriculum detail, no school inspectors, no competitive sports, children too young to articulate publicly, etc. Merge any useful information (eg URL, accreditation) with Palo Alto, California which already contains a reference to the school. And redirect. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the school thing is getting out of hand: Preschools are not schools, people! It's right in the word: "pre"-school, meaning before school. Unlike a university or high school, anybody with some spare space in their house, a few toys, and free time during the day can set up a preschool. Also, preschool articles are unlikely to be truly verifiable, as almost all information about them comes from their own websites or ads. Please, think before you vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Starblind, also very few preschools would be notable Salsb 14:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Starblind. According to Montessori method "There are currently over 3000 privately held Montessori schools in the USA", "most of which" cover the 3-6 age range. Does WP need another 2000+ articles like this? 192.18.1.5 15:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I really don't see any decent reason to remove it. Unfocused 15:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Palo Alto, California where the school is already described. — RJH 15:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --Nandesuka 15:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete indifferentiatable from other pre-schools. --Tim Pope 16:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, counterrevolutionary. Gazpacho 16:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep please it is not communist gate man why did you create a article about your own preschool and now you want to erase this one that seems weird Yuckfoo 16:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Go right ahead and call Joe, Kappa. --Scimitar parley 17:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like most schools, non-notable. --Carnildo 18:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it had some notariety outside of the local community, it might be worth keeping. This does not. Allegrorondo 18:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete preschools and primary schools. Dunc|☺ 18:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable preschool, like millions of others CDC (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This really is a line that should not be crossed. Although I don't see much harm in a redirect, I do not see much value either. -Splash 19:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycle, for the usual reasons. Equally as notable as Village Preschool of Saratoga, which the nominator created. —RaD Man (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the same creator later changed his vote to delete on that article's vfd. Gamaliel 19:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you talking about? My vote there is exactly the same as it is here. —RaD Man (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Creator" always refers to me. :) —RaD Man (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, thats what Lenin would say too. feydey 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Non-notable pre-school, which is almost a redundancy. No slightest evidence of encyclopediac content, and no reason to expect any. DES (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete People are writing article about preschools now?! Please excuse while I go cry... Soltak 22:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fg2 00:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand If that's all there is, then maybe the contents could go into the palo alto article. However, I don't like the idea of upmerging though, because for a half dozen or more mentions of schools most articles about decent cities would bloat up like the guy at the end of that Monty Python movie. Maybe a merge to Pre-schools in Palo Alto, California is the right place for this. This is definitely a vote against deleting verifiable information. SchmuckyTheCat 01:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We keep railway stations. We keep bridges. We keep highways. We keep schools - big or small, private or public, high or pre. There is no justifiable reason for deleting articles about verifiable permanent institutions.--Gene_poole 02:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You want to keep all "verifiable permanent institutions" do you? how about sewage plants? water treatment facilities? power plants? factories? Jails? Casinos? Municipal power companies? A line really ought to be drawn somewhere, and I think preschools ought to be beyond it, unless there is sonmething unusual about a particular preschool that makes it notable and encyclopaedic. A preschool with general fame, or one founded to try a well known and contraversal method of education might well be notable, but a more or less ordinary preschool would not be. Montessori Schools in general as a movement or a type of school, certanly are notable, but not this particualr Montessori School. DES (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "sewage plants? water treatment facilities? power plants? factories? Jails? Casinos? Municipal power companies?" Absolutely! The only reason I would reject this article is lack of verifiability. Are you *seriousl* suggesting that if I wrote an article about my local water treatment plant you'd vote to delete it? And Wormwood Scrubs? Pentonville? You're proposing to delete articles about the prison systems? The mind boggles! What *are* your criteria for notability if you would delete such a thing? --Tony SidawayTalk
        • Yes I would vote to delete an article about a local water treatment plant, unless it was in some way unusual, significant, or of more than local importance, as shown in the article. Note: I said "jails" not "prisons" much less "prison systems". I was talking about ordinanry municipal or county level lockups -- there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of such, few of any particular interest or notability ouside of their local areas. (So, not Wormwood Scrubs, but the Foo Street Magistrate Court's lockup I would consider non-notable.) In general, a physical or social structure similar in function and design to many other such structures, in no way exceptional, and of little or no interest beyond its local area is IMO not notable, and all the above kinds of institutions would usually fit this limit, as do most schools. I trust that makes my criteria clearer. DES (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, verifiable != encyclopaedic. Not notable. Proto t c 09:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, nn. Radiant_>|< 13:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of this preschool's notability. Sliggy 16:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable. No Account 00:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. AlbertR 02:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable pre-school. What next? Daycare centers? Part-time baby-sitters? --Tysto 20:16, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Palo_Alto_Montessori_School&oldid=1138200933"