Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle County Charter Academy

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. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle County Charter Academy[edit]

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

school that in no way demonstrates any sort of outside notability Yaksar (let's chat) 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Fits nicely into three exiting categories: Charter schools in Colorado, Elementary schools in Colorado, and Middle schools in Colorado. I'm in the process of fixing the references and adding more. Really not sure in what way the project would be served by the deletion of this article. 97 mentions in google news, plenty of sources to pick from. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand you have issues with the notability requirement in general, and that's perfectly reasonable. However, arguments such as "it can't hurt" or "deleting this doesn't improve the project" don't particularly help much with the discussion. I nominated this because a) it had no outside sources describing anything and b) there was certainly nothing presented to distinguish it from every other charter or elementary school in the world. If this notability can't be established, it can't meet the requirements.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
97 mentions in google news. Consistently the highest-rated elementary and middle school in the district. I'll be adding more information. Moreover, short of dogmatism, what do you hope to accomplish by removing the article? To rephrase the question, what's wrong with having an article on this, or any other elementary school? It's not promotional, it's informative, and it coalesces disparate chunks of information into one place. Seems like a fine candidate for a Wikipedia article. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Throwaway85. 97 news references sounds notable to me. The notability guidelines are to aid us. They are not a straitjacket. Keep.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number doesn't as much as what they're about. None of them make this school any more notable than the thousands of other elementary schools (and before anyone mentions it, a school being ranked as "excellent" in the district is not equivalent to winning an honor or award.)--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not have a rule against elementary schools. It's been proposed, and rejected, over and over again. The community-accepted standard is at WP:ORG, and 97 news articles generally clears that bar quite nicely, as it actually only requires two (at least one of which must not be a small-town newspaper that prints a story about every single thing in town). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Per WP:ORG#Primary_criteria, the sources that are abundantly available appear kosher. Many of the articles are on the school district as a whole, mentioning ECCA specifically (usually for academic achievement), and a few are on ECCA itself (it's difficult status within the district, state grant for new field, etc). Throwaway85 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there is nothing in here to distinguish the school as any more notable than every other school in the US. Class size, academic performance, etc. can are informative and should be in this article, but they don't make it notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I must be missing something, but doesn't the notability "guideline" refer to the extent and significance of coverage? Your comment seems to me, and perhaps I'm misreading you, to suggest that the problem is not the coverage, but the quality of the school being somehow ordinary and thus not worthy of note. Tkotc (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually. You'll notice that there are points made distinguishing trivial and routine coverage from actual coverage. Also check out WP:SOURCESEARCH.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I helped write this article, and I believe that it should stay. I know that my friends at the school like having an article about their school somewhere.Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per our standard procedure for primary and middle schools. Just because your friends like the idea, it's not a reason for having an article in Wikipia is not a reason.Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From your link: "Exceptions to this are when a school article of any level does, or can be shown to clearly have the potential of meeting the notability guideline". It's already been established that this article easily clears GNG due to the preponderance of secondary sources. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the essay at WP:WPSCH/AG overrule the policy at WP:GNG? I doubt it. bobrayner (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Seems to be more substantial coverage than most schools - although I would point out that some of the sources are ones which list all schools in a particular area - such a source merely establishes that the school exists, not that it's notable. bobrayner (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Among those 87 (not 97) Google links to newspaper articles there appear to be very few that are all independently and regularly reporting the same notable features. It would be fairer to us here, to be presented with the exact links to the precise newspaper reports of the kind that confirm an established, exceptional reputation for the school. The vast majority of the reports are the same run-of-the-mill column fillers that every grade school gets in its local newspapers. A preponderance of secondary sources on a miscellany of trivia does not alone add up to notability. Kudpung (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment while merge is a form of keep, my !vote above should be taken as opposition to a merge.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudpung, you still appear to think that notability, on Wikipedia, means something that it does not. I suggest you re-read WP:GNG. The existence of quality sources is the only criteria for iclusion. Those sources exist, as I have already demonstrated. Whether or not you think the subject is uninteresting, or that it doesn't stand out, is irrelevant. It is, furthermore, a red herring, as notability in the common parlance has no bearing on a subject's suitability for inclusion. From the GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." This is unequivocal. We may argue over the quality and quantity of sources, but not over this. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on the article and not on the editors. The sources are a total miscellany of tidbits that almost every run-of-the-mill school regularly gets in its local newspaper(s). Kudpung (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting on you as an editor, I'm saying that your understanding of notability, as it applies on Wikipedia, is flawed. I'm commenting on your argument that the school is non-notable because it's like every other school. The fact is, sufficient sources exist to write an informative, if brief, encyclopedic article. I've added some references, and will further expand the article after the AfD. Deleting this article serves no purpose and is counter to our policies and principles; maintaining and expanding it will help grow the project. This is what we do. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to the town of Wolcott, Colorado as usually done with run-of-the-mill elementary/middle schools. Here's a good example of why a simple count of Google News hits is not a valid argument for notability: The vast majority of those hits are from the Vail Daily, a free hyperlocal paper with a claimed circulation of just 15,000. OF COURSE such a paper is going to write about the local schools; they have to fill their pages somehow. To be notable there would have to be at least something from, say, the Denver Post. I found two passing mentions in the Rocky Mountain News; otherwise all those hits are just filler to pad out the pages of a tiny free local paper. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Run-of-the-mill" isn't an argument against inclusion, but the quality of sources is. I recall coming across a few Dever Post articles when I was adding references; I'll endeavour to find them again. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't? Please see WP:Run-of-the-mill: "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from all the rest. In other words, something or someone that is "run-of-the-mill" is probably not notable." Yes, please do look for references in better quality sources, and remember we need to see SIGNIFICANT coverage - not just passing mentions. I admire your tenacity in trying to save this article and I am open to changing my mind if significant coverage can be found, but I am skeptical that it exists. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay, not policy. I can start WP:No-articles-starting-with-'A', but that doesn't mean it has any bearing on an AfD. GNG is clear; a subject's notability for the purposes of inclusion are determined solely by the number and quality of sources on it. I'll take a look for better ones after House ;)Throwaway85 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not official policy, but "it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article." It's not just something somebody made up one day. The fact that it exists here as an essay, and has for several years, should give you some idea of what consensus thinking has historically been about run-of-the-mill things and institutions. That historic consensus is what you are up against here. The burden is on you to show that this school is not "run-of-the-mlll," but something more. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an awfully weak straw to grasp at. When was the last time we deleted an essay around here? Longevity does not equal value, it just means it is not so irrelevant that a MFD was in order. I think Throwaway85 for sure has had the better of this discussion and this should close as "keep" or at worst, "no consensus".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Throwaway85 has "had the better of this discussion" based on what? Volume? After all, more than a third of all the comments here are from him/her. But he/she is still struggling to come up with any significant coverage from reliable sources (as opposed to the huge count of citations from a hyperlocal free paper). If significant coverage in reliable sources cannot be found, the school is not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then with all due respect, I suggest we read NG again.Kudpung (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the requirement for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, is there something in GNG you feel is pertinent, perhaps from WP:NOT? I'm looking for more/better sources. If I can't find them, I'll accept the AfD as it lies, although I still maintain the sources available are fine for an informative, if small, article. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two Denver Post articles, here and here. Unfortunately they're behind paywalls, so I can't see the content, but they're on the success of charter schools and mention ECCA explicitly. They also have quotes from ECCA officials. I'll try some useragent magic to see if I can bypass the paywall. There's another DP article here, but the link appears to be broken. I'll see if I can find another way to the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Visits from Olympians: ESPN, Edmonton Sun Throwaway85 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the same article, word for word - in two different publications. Still, it's nice that some Olympic skiers visited the school and got national/international coverage for doing so. As for the Denver Post stories, from what I can see they are mentions, not "significant coverage" of the school itself. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fantastic, nigh-on unbelievable feat of penmanship, given that the ESPN article is three times as long as the one in the Edmonton Sun. The article in the sun is a subset of the ESPN article, so it should be ignored. "Significant coverage" need not be contained within a single source. It's perfectly acceptable to have it spread over, say, 90 sources. Regardless, the Vail Daily is a reliable secondary source by the standards we have set as a community. If you'd like to argue that it fails based on readership, then so too would the Principia Mathematica. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of sources giving minor or trivial coverage definitely does equal any sort of significant coverage. And guest speakers speaking at a school does not transfer notability, no matter how famous. Hell, they could take a job there and it wouldn't necessarily make the school notable. Remember, notability is not inherited.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another essay, not policy. Regardless, I agree that the mere fact that an Olympic skier dropped by doesn't make a subject notable, but the preponderance of sources does. There's more than enough to write a good article on the subject, which is all we require. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, they're both just small mentions, one in an article about charter schools in general, and the other in a list of 10 schools honored for high attendance and academic performance (something which, for a school that's not a high school, doesn't mean so much)--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And hell, even the president visiting a school doesn't make it notable, let alone an athlete.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, however, does. Anyway, the Denver Post articles are no longer hosted on that site, but a paywalled news storage site. Useragent tomfoolery would probably get me access, but I'd need the url of an article on that site to do so, and I don't have a credit card with which to buy access. I wouldn't be opposed to paying for the articles themselves, but it's a moot point. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Significant being the key word. Not passing or trivial.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the 50-60 Vail Daily articles on the school itself, we have interviews with school officials in the DP, articles in international papers on Olympian visits, all the stats and personnel info we need to fill in the infobox... I'm having trouble ascertaining where your opposition to having this article lies, outside of it being an elementary school. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't appear to fit into any of the categories listed at WP:NOT#DIR. Care to elaborate? Throwaway85 (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2011 (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.
Okay, one sec. Since I am one of the writers, and I go to the school, I need to talk to the principal. There were some issues that arose when the article created, and they just might like that the article be deleted. I can ask, but I think that although the article is short and a stub, there's no reason to delete it. It doesn't hurt to have one more little article out there. I'm sorry that the info in the infobox can't be more specific, and add more information, but CamrynRocks! and I were prohibited from putting up any more names. In fact, if I may be allowed to do this, I'd like to take the names of the vice and main principal off of the article.Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this comment, and my response, can remain. Mountain Girl, the discussion is over. The result is that we were unable to agree on an outcome, which means the article stays as is. While I realize you and Camryn have difficulties because of your principal (I do not know his reasoning for objecting to information about his school that does not mention kids by name, so I will not judge), but that should not be a reason to make changes to the article. At this point, nothing is being done to the article. Any questions please take to the article talk page or my talk page, you know I will always answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eagle_County_Charter_Academy&oldid=1087635273"