Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith 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 keep, if you wish to pursue a merge, please start a merge dicussion. Otherwise this AfD clearly has no consensus to delete, meets WP:V and it has reliable sources. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Academy[edit]

Smith Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete article absolutely does not assert schools notability, merge into rel. school district per common practice. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, per common practice for grade schools that have no separate means of establishing notability. --DachannienTalkContrib 07:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a school that teaches down to Kindergarten solely in languages such as Japanese and Chinese is not notable?[1] Highly succesful teaching across the board despite teaching in a foreign language?[2] Is there another one like this? Sure it needs sourcing up but there are plenty available. I'm all for merging common or garden elementary schools but not unique ones like this. TerriersFan (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even within its district, it is not exactly unique [3] . cab (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not the only immersion school but in Japanese and Chinese, exceptionally difficult as second languages, as far as I can see it is. TerriersFan (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Bruns Avenue Elementary School is the International Language Academy with French Immersion, German Immersion and Japanese Immersion (grades K-5)". Nationwide there are 553 elementary and middle schools offering the Japanese language (including immersion and as a foreign language) [4]. cab (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Chinese :-)? Never mind; well researched! And thanks to your hard work it is now a keep on multiple sources thus meeting WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the usual practice for grade schools is to merge if there is nothing substantial to say, or nothing particularly distinctive. This is one of the one that is distinctive, and for which there is material. All articles on a subject are not usually equally poor (or equally good), so general deletion rationales not taking note of the individual article are usually not appropriate. . DGG (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as appropriate. Sources may be appropriate in language immersion where it may be more notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Language immersion should be about the general topic, and maybe specific examples mentioned in the context of an academic discussion of language immersion, not specific examples lacking larger significance to the article as a whole. Merging this to there would be like tacking a blurb onto the end of the Jazz music article about every jazz band who gets written up in the local paper. cab (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral between keep or merge even though I put in a bit of work myself at cleaning up the article, I'm not convinced. The second-place finish in the Goldman Sachs award competition is a start, and their curriculum is at least slightly unusual, but the fact that there's no coverage outside of their local metro paper doesn't sit well with me. The comments of The Onion =) about local sports coverage [5] often apply to local education coverage as well. cab (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article absolutely does assert schools notability, now. Thanks to TerriersFan's excellent work, article meets WP:ORG criteria for having at least one substantial, independent, reliable source. Noroton (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep because of proven notabilty Secret account 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. This school is a clear standout among the class of primary schools; painting all primary school articles with a one-size-fits all brush is not the wikipedia way. This article meets inclusion criteria and is encyclopedic. JERRY talk contribs 04:12, 23 January 2008 (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/Smith_Academy&oldid=1138774247"