Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlboro School

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. Note that the article has been heavily improved since the nomination, and the nominator had withdrawn his nomination. Issues with the article following WP:NPOV and WP:OR are really more of a editorial issue; but there is no consensus that the article passes WP:N - given the many interpretations of it made here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Marlboro School

Marlboro School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Sorry folks, it's another school... A small K-8 school, which I assume means up to age of about 13. I would not have brought this here if it were a secondary school, but for a small school for young children to achieve notability it would have to make some major claims and cite some strong sources, neither of which this does. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. IMO the sources added since I nominated the article do now demonstrate notability (see below). Will leave the nomination in place though, as others have said 'delete' - but closing admin please note the article has changed substantially since my nomination and some of these opinions. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like an account of every prep. school maybe even an advert, probably doesn't reach noteability, sort of like writing an article about my dog and what it does throughout the day (which would probably make more sense if I had a dog)--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Changing my vote. It looks like this is here in case the school's website ever goes down. Unlike those school articles that are written or edited as part of a class project/lesson about Wikipedia, this is written by someone in administration. Normally I'd say, merge to Marlboro, Vermont but this is pratically a student/parent handbook. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Arny (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm the librarian of the school and we just created this page as part of a junior high unit on wikis and how they work. The students were going to continue to add to and edit the page. The first para they lifted from our handbook, the rest they wrote themselves. We thought it'd be a good idea after looking at all these pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Elementary_schools_in_the_United_States This is actually a great learning experience for the kids, so I'm interested to see what happens. Can't wait to tell them they sound like administrators. FYI, we're public, we're not trying to supplement our website or anything bogus.

Elementary school articles tend to be poorly put together and fail to meet Wikipedia criteria, so they are often deleted or merged into an article for their school district (if an article exists for it) or for their community, and a lot of content sometimes lost. As noted at WP:Notability and WP:ORG, information must be sourced from reliable sources, usually multiple sources that have more than a trivial amount of information on the subject. These criteria can be tough to gather for an elementary school, and Wikipedia editors tend to be tough on enforcing standards, even when the article creators have the best intentions. Best of luck with it. Noroton (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to this I would say that the fact the criteria is tough to achieve for an elementary school is the very reason many school articles are deleted. This is no slur on the quality of the individual establishments. I'm glad you think Wikipedia editors are tough on standards, that shows we're heading in the right direction. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I've added to the article, including citations from two independent sources. The article meets WP:Notability standards. Interesting school, too. Noroton (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment brave effort, but IMHO they're not quite enough. Only one reference (7) actually refers to the school itself, and that's for not installing a windmill, rather than any educational issues. In principle I think it's an excellent idea to get the kids involved, will message the originating editor with encouragement. But the technical aspects of writing and formatting are less than half the issue for me, with WP:N and WP:V being far more important and I don't think the former has been completely answered here. Sorry for the length of this comment: trying to say 'delete' while remaining encouraging! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps your comment came in before I added the information about the standardized testing controversy. It's a rare school that refuses to take them, and I can't see any way around that being very notable and about the school, so WP:N is met. I answer the objection over WP:V below. Noroton (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed - I thought initially that reference (2) was just to the whole district board, but can see from the title of the article that it was specifically about the school. I agree that (even if just in a local context) this just about satisfies notability criteria. Shame the source can't be linked to directly - or can it? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is too bad everybody can't access the article. I've been able to access many articles through newsbank.com -- many more than are available through the free Google News Archives. My newsbank.com access comes through my local library. Other editors might be surprised to find what access to Internet resources their local library Web site gives them. Noroton (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete IMHO fails WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR; our three core content policies. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It fails none of them now. Original research? WP:V doesn't apply to an AfD discussion where nearly all of the article is (now) sourced. I think I've fixed all the NPOV problems, but if anything's left, it's a relatively simple editing matter. Noroton (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:V still applies. As far as the sources go, the school handbook/website ones violate WP:COS and represent a conflict of interest. My stance is still Delete. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we're explicitly allowed to cite the subject itself when we edit articles. In fact, we usually do. Students can participate in articles about their schools without a conflict of interest, and I don't recall hearing that the librarian did the editing (if so, the problem is easily fixed and not an AfD issue). I don't understand why you're citing WP:V and WP:COS, and I don't understand why violations of either would justify deletion rather than simply fixing the problem (if there is a problem). Noroton (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, WP:V and WP:COS affect referencing. If referencing is inappropriate or non-existant then statements within an article can be changed/removed at any time. The conflict-of-interest as I see it is that the article is about an establishment, was created by people from that establishment and is mainly referenced by self-promotional material created for and by that establishment. This in itself is possible grounds for deletion, and a lack of secondary sources (WP:V again) to back up the self-promotional material means a lack of evidence that this establishment has the requisite notability for a Wikipedia article. I hope that clears my viewpoint up as far as application of Wikipedia policies to this article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that we're supposed to be paying attention to the spirit of policies and guidelines even more than their details, which can be twisted when we don't pay attention to the spirit, and we're also supposed to keep policies and guidelines in perspective by paying attention to real-world concerns. You are objecting to the existence of an article because one or more students from a public school cites that school's Web site. Considering the size of the town, a town meeting form of government, and a forum on the town Web site, where would someone hide if they lied or exaggerated on the school's site? For basic facts about the school, it's a good source. Noroton (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment to the librarian at Marlboro School You can transfer this article to a User page ("userfy it" to use the jargon here) so that the students can learn how to do wikis, then use it as long as the lesson last. I think that the reason that the students "sound like administrators" is because they're not being allowed to "sound like students". The editing history shows perhaps three student contributions, each of which has been quickly corrected to conform to acceptable standards. I'm sure that the students at Marlboro are no less creative than those of any other middle school, but the boundreys/boundaries they're operating inside seem rather strict. All of us, adults as well as kids, learn from our mistakes. Wikipedia provides an opportunity for writers to improve their skills by minimizing the consequences that come with such mistakes. In any event, I hope that the students satisfies (oops!) satisfy the objective criteria. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• ...and another feature of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, even someone who I'm fairly sure isn't a student at Marlboro School. I haven't seen Noroton's edit, but he's within his rights to make changes to your article. Your students, in turn, are within their rights to make their own changes as well. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - page now has the multiple, independent sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Noroton's changes have made it possible for this article to stay up for awhile. I'll have to say, I'm impressed with some of the novel ideas that the school has... the designated climbing trees is one I'll bring up for our small K-8 school. I'm not sure that anyone at the Marlboro School will have any appreciation of the significance, but he's made it more likely that it'll be here for the students to learn from. From here on out, the kids at Marlboro can build on the page. Nice going, Noroton. Mandsford (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep - seems notable enough. a bit more referencing and a bit less gushing advertisement of the school would be good, but by far not the worst examples of either. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete while improved, I still have a concern for sources, the school website isn't an independent source, and the only other source listed is a local newspaper story, I don't see the multiple indepentent sources. Secret ^account 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Madden and Weiss-Tisman footnotes are two separate stories which have enough depth of coverage to count toward notability. Although I've been describing it incorrectly for months, you actually only need one reliable, independent source providing "significant [depth of] coverage" to reach the Wikipedia notability criteria -- or multiple, reliable, independent sources that provide more than a trivial depth of coverage. See the first paragraph of the "Primary Criterion" section of WP:ORG. Noroton (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I just don't see the local town newspaper as significant, non-trivial coverage required for WP:N, sorry Secret ^account 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There have been many discussions on this and there is no policy reason for a local paper not to be a reliable source. TerriersFan (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• (original author)I have added citations to two recent articles from a reliable independent source (educational journal). The issue is not yet available online but I have the print version and will link when available. Full disclosure: the articles are written by teachers at the school, but the journal is peer-reviewed. We are a tiny school without much outside press, though we did gain some national attention for our stance against standardized testing. We are also a public school, our goal here is not to increase enrollment but to take part in Wikipedia as an educational endeavor. I sincerely thank everyone for the help, encouragement and interest. I'm interested to see the outcome.Maplethelibrarian (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This school is not notable and the article doesn't really assert that it is. This seems to be a totally average school - all primary schools have libraries, put on performances, run field trips and give the kids a break in the middle of the day and the article doesn't assert that it does much beyond this kind of thing. The claims to a notable "Standardized testing controversy" seem weak given that the article states that these tests went ahead and almost all the kids took part and "the school district has a policy allowing parents to refuse to have their children take the standardized tests". This seems to suggest that it was no big deal, even if it was unusual (I note that the article doesn't state that it was unusual though - did the same kind of thing happen in the other schools in the district given that the kids don't have to take part?). The school's course design appears interesting (though it's written in jargon), but that warrants an article on the education philosophy and not the school (the article also doesn't assert that the approach is unique to the school). The tone of the article is also inappropriate for an encyclopedia and seems to have been written as a promotion for the school (for instance, "The school thinks that field trips are a great way for kids to experience things and be engaged", "school officials identified "Realms of Learning" to "guide our instruction," and "In Gym we enjoy ourselves"). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the article meets Wikipedia's standards of notability, both WP:N and WP:ORG, no higher notability requirements are needed. In fact, those guidelines explicitly and prominently (in their top sections) state that no higher requirements should be mandated by editors. That said, the school even meets the Nick Dowling standard of notability in its very unusual public controversy over No Child Left Behind testing. His other objections are matters for editing, not deletion. Noroton (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Trim, Merge to Marlboro, Vermont, I see nothing notable at all about this school. Article still has mission statement and other fluff. It still says "we paint, make collages...". AnteaterZot (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. — from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus I think we should have this, in boldface, permanently affixed to the top of every deletion discussion page. Maybe we could get a recording to play when you open up the page. Put it on a loop. It can't be any more monotonous than the same old arguments we see here, impervious to arguments based on logic, evidence and policies and guidelines. Noroton (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Let us assume the closing admin will know the relevant policies, and also read the article and judge for themselves. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • But we couldn't assume certain other editors did, which was why I posted the quote. It's nice to establish whether or not editors are holding their positions because they don't know policy or don't care about policy. Noroton (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.