Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Christas International 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Christas International School

Please sign your comments with four tidles ( ~~~~ ). Please do not use ALL CAPS or bolding, as your comment will be modified. Anonymous editors may comment on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Linda Christas International School.

Attempt to get around Linda Christas. Serial spammer--Francisx 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• if this is re-creation of previously deleted material then it should be speedied. Pete.Hurd 22:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Google "Linda Christas International School." This isn't a real school. There are no references outside of Wiki-Spam. These people have been spamming dozens of Wiki-articles marketing their company.--Francisx 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I thought the material had been recreated in this article form the deleted and protected article Linda Christas, if that was the case (I don't know what the contents of that article were) then this AfD is unnecessary and the article should be deleted on sight. Pete.Hurd 03:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

note to closing 'crat please verify that this is not merely a recreation of the Linda Christas should a "keep" consensus emerge. Pete.Hurd 03:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This was the version deleted at the old afd; they're different enough that I wasn't comfortable speedying it while I was cleaning up its satellite articles. The old afd was closed early as a speedy, anyway, so it's not g4able. —Cryptic 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This appears to be a good-faith article about a school. High schools are generally notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence of the good faith you see, as I see nothing but spam. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Truthbringer has actually read the article in question, it's certainly not a highschool. But he has perused the article history to extend invitations to the sockpupets^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H authors of the article to come here and vote [1] [2]... Pete.Hurd 03:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A pre-university school is most commonly known as a high school, although there are exceptions, such as a CEGEP. If the school is actually a tertiary or post-secondary institution, then we should remember that most such institutions are notable. I left the {{subst:adw|NAME OF ARTICLE}} messages on the talk pages because the nominator had chosen not to. Remember that WP:AFD states: "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." Some comments refer to this school as a business. The context suggests that it is a not-for-profit charitable organization, but I have been unable to confirm this. That having been said, I feel that the term "crazy" is offensive and inappropriate, and I would ask the person who used that term to withdraw it. I think that the material that Richfife found ought to be mentioned in the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a Chilling Effects link to the article. Here's a link to the blog in question: [3]. I can't decide whether it belongs in the article proper or not. - Richfife 05:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI: None of the full time staff appear to have any sort of advanced degree and only one has an official teaching credential: [4]. The "Linda Christas College Fund" makes no mention of actually ever having funded anything: [5]. They do list their goals, though. - Richfife 05:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Linda Christas College Fund is a 501c4 student advocacy group^{[citation needed]}. That is NOT what is being shown on Wikipedia. What is being shown on Wikipedia is the School. If we are going to be critical, let's at least get our facts in order.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oppieangel2000 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 October 2006.

Having done some original research (I know we're not supposed to do that) and called around, I've found no evidence that LC International School has been accredited. Unaccredited schools are not normally notable. This appears to be a for-profit business of dubious notability. Long history of spamming Wikipedia should certainly raise eyebrows.--Francisx 14:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Original Research is a good way to help you find secondary research, which can then be included. Good work! - Richfife 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Original Research doesn't belong in articles. The use of OR in AfD debates is not only legitimate, it is arguably necessary to evaluate claims made. Pete.Hurd 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep We have my brother's high school on Wikipedia. What's the diff. Actually, someone should have left the original Linda Christas alone as well. Too many editors who have emotional problems at Wikipedia. Another example, someone is going out of their way to put the word FUCK on Pat Boone's site, and reference to Amway. But the same person deletes that Pat Boone is President of the University Board at Pepperdine, and holds a chair at Linda Christas in honor of the black and blind concert Pianist John William Boone. I mean, the editor likes Fuck and Amway, but not Pepperdine University and Linda Christas. He's done it about ten times. Doesn't say much for the judgement of the editors. I'm going to put it in again. See if you see it when you check. I assume that the REAL editors of Wikipedia might agree that Pepperdine is a bit more notable that Fuck. Well, maybe not.Oppieangel2000

— Oppieangel2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It With schools in Poland, China and the United States, I think this school is more than notable.Butchalliran

— Butchalliran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• KP It One small reference on Wikipedia to LC helped me find this great school. They literally saved my son's life. Keep It Keep It Thelystrom

— Thelystrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Extreme delete. NO references, zero Google hits for "Linda Christas International School" outside of Wikipedia spamming. This is worth reading. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It From my research, LC is a reputable school. The link Zoe sited is obviously written by a nut. If we delete this one, lots of good schools would need to be deleted also. imho! Tech27

— Tech27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• EXTREME KEEP IT I counted 42 hits when doing a Linda Christas Search on Google. One of the reasons we have such a poor public school system is that every time a significantly good alternative comes along, a zillion people who are employed by the public schools pan it. This is unfortunatete. In addition, check out these same people who want to delete things on Wikipedia, they put such negative garbage in their own stuff. My goodness. If Wikipedia descends to their level, it will be worthless.GeorgeStanton

Surprise, surprise. — GeorgeStanton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . User:Zoe|(talk) 02:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I get ZERO Google hits when I look for "Linda Christas School". But so what? The article is titled "Linda Christas International School". If there is no such thing, then there should be no such article. If you think this school is so wonderful, then it should be really, really easy to provide reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable sources, no verification or even substantial verifiability, not written according to a neutral point of view, not enough press coverage or publicly available resources to even allow us to write about it with a neutral point of view. Furthermore, it appears to be connected to a campaign to spam Wikipedia. Delete it and protect against recreation - this is the most perfect deletion candidate I have seen in a long time. Captainktainer * Talk 03:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It I think people are missing the point here. Linda Christas is a three country school. Wikipedia has one horse town schools in the Encyclopedia, so what is the problem with Linda Christas other than it's a good place for kids. Also, people need to understand that the web site for all three Linda Christas schools is listed under just Linda Christas, not Linda Christas International. The International designation is relatively recent because of their success in China. So ANY hit you get with a Linda Christas search and there are lots of them is good for Linda Christas International. Also, I agree with one of the comments above. The people like The Taoist, and the Miles Williams of the world are really crazy. If those kinds of people win something like this, we are lost.— 71.142.236.117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What are the addresses and phone #'s of the Linda Christa schools in Poland and China? All I see on the site are some faded photos that look like they were scanned from old postcards. - Richfife 07:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, Keep It I think that a lot of the trouble here is that one has to look at who and what Linda Christas has accomplished. I mean Sue Grafton, Pat Boone, Efrem Zimbalist Jr. and Alison Jiear don't lend their names to just any project. In the case of Mr. Boone, the only other school he is affiliated with is Pepperdine University. Are we going to say that Linda Christas is not notable. Efrem Zimbalist is a Pulitzer winner for cripes sake. Do you think that he would willy nilly allow his name to be used by scammers and spammers. Let's get real WikiRolandPatina— RolandPatina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sue Grafton, Pat Boone, Efrem Zimbalist Jr. and Alison Jiear don't lend their names to just any project. Really? doesn't the evidence presented here suggest just the opposite?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.40.121 (talk • contribs).

• delete, nn pyramid scam. —Cryptic 03:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all above. Coordinated attempt at spam. Resolute 03:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Google search turns up 1) High pressure marketing 2) Complaints about scammish nature of the business 3) Legal attempts (copyright nastygrams, etc.) to shut up #2. No press coverage that isn't blatantly PR from the organization itself that I can find. This is not the first attempt to recreate under a different name. - Richfife 04:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The negative material I see on Google regarding Linda Christas has nothing to do with anyone or anybody who knows anything about Linda Christas. That's what's happening here. The negative posts are from people who a reasonable person would listen to and then do the exact opposite thing. A Taoist and a Racist. I mean, Linda Christas was accused of racism. Take a look at the faces on their Board. If one can call this school racist, then the KKK is not.

Anyway, this school is worthy of being on Wikipedia. If one is counting socks, maybe not. But if one is really wanting to have something worthwhile on the data base then, for heavens sake, girls, back off. Linda Christas has been supported on D.C. Radio. New York City Radio (Public service radio - not high pressure sales radio). It has a record of ZERO BBB complaints unsatisfied. I mean this school is attacked everywhere it tries to help kids, and help kids they do (without one penny of our tax money). One lady wrote a letter complaining that she didn't like the name of the School and if they didn't change it, she was going to file with the BBB. I mean really!!!!

So I ask you, why would you delete this school when if you just read the stuff that is said that is negative about Linda Christas you will see that none of the people complaining have a single child in the school. They just like to complain, as so many Americans do.

Linda Christas is an elite school with some of the best minds and personalities in the world supporting it. Captain Jim Lovell (Apollo 13) is considering accepting a seat on the Linda Christas Advisory Committee, and NONE of the celebrities or scientists or authors that currently are on the Committee are paid a dime to contribute their leadership to the school. Again, if you girls are salvageable, there is no doubt about the merits of Linda Christas. This article needs to stay. ShirleyDobbins

— Possible single purpose account: ShirleyDobbins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep If any of the components of the Linda Christas site are worthy of a listing on Wikipedia, I would think logically that the full site would also be worthy. People like Pat Boone, Efrem Zimbalist Jr, Sue Grafton, and Alison Jiear felt comfortable having their rather awesome names used in connection with this school. They all have Wikipedia listings. Wouldn't we say by extension then that Linda Christs is deserving of at least a small space. For example, the Pat Boone listing is several times the length of the proposed Linda Christas site. I say keep the site, and if necessary have some portions re-written although it seems pretty objective to me as it is.

Keepyoursocksdry— Possible single purpose account:Keepyoursocksdry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep Are you guys serious that you want to get all the trash from trashy people and put that in Linda Christas' write-up. Why??? The people who have written on the net anything negative about Linda Christas know nothing about the school. Just read the comments. It would be like including the 3000 unanswered BBB complaints that IBM currently has on file. Why not put that in the IBM article???? Because the complaints against IBM are generally made because there was a loose wire somewhere, and not necessarily in the equipment. If you go to legitimate sources for complaints like the BBB....maybe. But IBM's 3000 unanswered complaints ARE with the BBB. So now with Linda Christas that has had ONE BBB complaint in nine years, and that one not even from a family who had a student in the school, that's what you are going to use to characterize this school??? Is anyone seriously thinking that's an objective listing of relevant material or relevant to deciding whether this school is notable?— Bestofseven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete or speedy as spam. With all the massive astroturfing and sockpuppeting going on, it's impossible to consider this a good-faith attempt at an encyclopedia article. If the school exists and is notable, it can have an article at a later date, written by an impartial and uninvolved third party. For now, we have no reason to perpetuate anyone's wikispam campaign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I fear not the awesome name of Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., especially when it comes to a high-pressure sales/marketing program like this. Robertissimo 12:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable advertising for a pyramid scheme that is trying to use Wikipedia to make a scam look legitimate. Protect to prevent recreation. --Charlene.fic 12:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Is the school recognized or accredited by a recognized accrediting agency? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I spent a good ten minutes calling around. No evidence that it's been accredited.Francisx 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the "school's" e-mail address appearing here is "@lindas.com", odd that this "school" isn't in an ".edu" domain of some sort. Pete.Hurd 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and in a minor way per Andrew Lenahan. --NuclearZer0 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. *drew 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment In addition to Richfife's helpful links above, this [6] from a dissatisfied customer is interesting and possibly enlightening. Robertissimo 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, spam - doesn't seem to be anything verified either.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

TO ALL OF THE NEW USERS WHO HAVE COME HERE TO VOTE "KEEP":

Please realize that, in order for an article to be on Wikipedia, it has to verifiable, with reliable sources. the school's publicity and its website are not reliable sources, neither are testimonials from supposed well-satisified students and their parents. We need news articles from reputable newspapers which discuss this school. We need cites from books and magazines which talk about it. Until and unless those sources are provided, there is no chance that this article can be kept, under our policies and guidelines. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The new users who have come here to vote keep have, coincidentally, been confirmed to be from the same IP. [7] —Cryptic 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not because of the lame sockpuppets, which do very little to sway me in either direction, but due to the lack of verifiable sources. Find some and maybe I'll change my mind. RFerreira 01:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources Googled it and Wikipedia was the only source I could find. Advertising spam.--Lord of Illusions 06:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I see that all attempts to correct the unfounded assumptions being made by the reviewers here are being deleted. For example, the gossip with no substantiation or checking with Linda Christas is being allowed. But, anyone offering substantitive actual experience with the school is evidently not worthy of consideration.

I am also a student at Linda Christas, and the student body is becoming amazed at the low level of research that passes for objectivity here. At least Opal was willing to give you guys a chance to correct these mistakes that you have been making. But, evidently Wikipedia is not interested in facts, just gossip. So be it. I sure am not going to recommend that anybody look to you guys for reliable information if a school like mine can be banned from being listed. I'm suprised you have Harvard listed. But you do. Also, Altamont Kindergarten. Now there's a notable school for you. I'll drop by to see if they even know you've got them. CYRIL LEE

Caps removed by Naconkantari

• Keep it: Substantiation: 40 hits google 31 hits Yahoo 37 hits metacrawler. None of these hits except the three from people who weren't accepted by Linda Christas or certainly haven't had experience with the school are to be seen on this page.

Even the factual material on the site including trade references, government references, media references, and Advisory Committee references, all these were deleted yesterday.

I'd post them again, but what's the use. You guys don't want to hear anything but your own voices. I have asked the Linda Christas Help Desk if ANYONE has contacted the school from Wikipedia. The answer is a resounding NO. This is the same level of "research" that is typical of persons who love hiding under rocks. And, you call yourselves objective? Dr. Ethel Strom. Parent whose children attend Linda Christas and proudly so.Thelystrom

— Possible single purpose account: Thelystrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please post the Google hits for "Linda Christas International School ", since I found none. Perhaps your search comes up with different results from mine. But once again, as I said above, please read WP:RS. First person accounts are not reliable sources. We need neutral, third-party sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zoe: Perhaps we need you to contact the Linda Christas Dean for input. But, that's probably not acceptable. Trade references are third parties and they were posted yesterday and were promptly deleted. I first discovered Linda Christas in Curious Parent Magazine, and then again in a submission to the English teachers forum at the State Department.

If all of this fuss is about whether this is a credible school, I would hope that Wikipedia has expended this much energy on all schools. I'm fairly confident that that is not the case.

I have just Googled for Linda Christas again, and you are correct, most of the hits are from parents and students of Linda Christas. The only comments that are from third parties are those with zero experience with the school. And, of course, those are quoted above. They are indeed third parties, one from a blogger (no knowledge of Linda Christas, but plenty of opinion) and Miles Williams (a person so far to the left that no minority person would ever have to do anything to live in mansions. Good luck to Wikipedia if this is the standard. Dr. Mason RidgeDrraymondridge 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: Drraymondridge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Read this: WP:RS. When you've read it, come back and say so here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_Christas_International_School. Then we can discuss it. Thanks! - Richfife 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yes, I understand. However, this policy is like saying that if I call you a crook, then you must find a party who doesn't know you to deny the charge. I don't see how a rule of this kind can possibly end up with other than the grimmest innacuracies. You can see this kind of thing in action on this talk page. Only persons who don't seem to have the slightest idea about Linda Christas can be quoted, and all of them are certainly light years away from center. Dr. Mason Ridge Drraymondridge

OK, I can see why you might feel that way. Yes, some people on this page feel that Linda Christas is not legitimate. I'm one of them. I could be wrong, so could everyone else. I think there are two issues in play here, each of them with different places they should be played out. If you don't like the policy of reliable sources, then you need to go here: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. We'll call that page #1. If you feel the policy is not being used correctly on this page, then this is the page to discuss it. We'll call this page #2. If you have complaints about the policy not being used correctly and complain about them at page #1, then no one will pay attention (wrong place). If you have complaints about the policy itself, and post about it in page #2, you will look like someone that only cares about this one article and no others. Wikipedians really hate that. We're here to make this a better resource across the board. - Richfife 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point here. But, I have no desire to begin a parliamentarian discussion of Roberts Rules. I just think that if the policies lead you to exclude a person or entity I know to be at the forefront of educational practice, if not theory, that is a disservice to anyone who might appreciate a look at the present with a bias (in a positive sense) toward the future. In that situation, only traditional organizations and theories will have an opportunity to meet with favor here, and in this age of speed and dynamic change, Wikipedia will become less desirable as a source than many of the established encyclopedias. (The yearly Americana is normally obsolete upon publication. That's one reason that Google and Metacrawler are consulted BEFORE Wikipedia. They understand the need for virtual change. Unless Wikipedia can overcome its own inertia, I'm afraid it will rapidly become massively redundant.)

Said differently, accuracy is one thing;being the best is another. I had hoped (and still hope) that Wikipedia can maneuver out from under the weight of encyclopedic "tradition" and truly become the dynamic venture that was its original vision. To that end I am certainly willing to contribute to Wikipedia. I am, however, going to allow this issue with Linda Christas to be a litmus test for me. If with all the input now posted on the net, and with the trade references and reputations of the persons supporting Linda Christas, the rules of inclusion/exclusion have already grown so cumbersome (not to say Jurassic) at Wikipedia so as to exclude Linda Christas, Wikipedia has moved beyond my personal exclusion "Event Horizon." On the other hand, if obstacles to the publication of the newest and most eagerly awaited societal changes can be reflected in something approaching real time by Wikipedia, without a planetary eruption when "traditional" long term sources are not available, Wikipedia will indeed be the FIRST knowledge source ever to surpass the glories of a search engine by virtue of its scholarship. If you wish, I am willing to interview the principals at this school, and re-create something for you to look at. But, from my perspective what they have already provided to the Wikipedia authorities, seems sufficient to maintain their listing. I can certainly corroborate some of it myself. (For example, I have met and entertained Efrem Zimbalist Jr. on several occasions. He is a very family oriented individual who loved and respected his father and mother very much. With his work at the Curtis Institute (which I do not see mentioned on his listing with Wikipedia, and his acceptance of a chair with Linda Christas, I frankly don't understand how Wikipedia can exclude these facts. Let me know if I can help. Dr. Mason Ridge 71.143.28.120

If this institution is indeed noteable for "[being] at the forefront of educational practice, if not theory" then surely you can cite some reliable, verifiable sources to substantiate that claim. --ElKevbo 05:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you've provided absolutely no way for anyone to verify your claim. You say Christas was in "Curious Parent" magazine. Is this it: [8] ? If so, it's very small. Which issue has an article about Christas in it? If Efrem Zimbalist is involved, why is his picture on the website a 50 year old headshot (He's 88 years old now)? Why not a picture of him with a staff member or student? Over and over again, all we get are testimonials ("Linda Christas saved my life!") and unsupported assertions ("Linda Christas is on the cutting edge of educational edge cutting!") You act offended that we aren't taking your word for it. Well, we're not supposed to. Wikipedia articles are considered guilty until proven innocent, and no evidence that has not provably come from outside of the Linda Christas organization has appeared. If you could get one of the celebrities listed as an endorser to come forward without any Christas employee acting as a go between and discuss their support of the organization, it would help, but it would probably not get the article all the way. Celebrity endorsements are not enough by themselves. Oh, and by the way, I often lose track of things here and there, but I never ever forget my own first name. You've been going back and forth between Raymond and Mason. - Richfife 07:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of verifiability. Cynical 11:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: The problem with the reasoning above is that we are expecting an institution that is fighting hudreds of billions of dollars a year in tax money to do more than point to its theory sources. You are not going to find lots of people in the community saying "gee whiz" what a wonderful way to change the system. Both the Waldorf schools and the Linda Christas schools have been under attack for three or four years for their policies regarding introducing material to children when the children are ready for it rather than treating them like cookies.

In my substantial travels, I have seen Linda Christas mentioned in several newspapers, albeit not the New York Times. One newspaper was in the Los Angeles area (Los Cerritos Community News), and the other when I was traveling in Oregon (Argus Newspapers) I have also heard Linda Christas mentioned on public radio at least in Watertown, New York (Their fund raising auction in 2005. Linda Christas had donated a scholarship to them to auction off.) And, as mentioned, you can find articles about the school in Curious Parent Magazine. Further, some public high school districts have recently been picking up the Linda Christas rules for selecting extracurricular eactivities, Dedham High School District, for example.

(Start interjection)

The "Hillboro Argus" or the "Argus Observer"? Which issue? Which issues of the "Los Cerritos Community News"? Which public radio station? What was the time and date? Which issue of "Curious Parent" magazine? There is no "Dedham High School District", but there is a "Dedham High School" here: [9]. Is this the correct school? Which department are you referring to? Who should I contact? - Richfife 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(Stop interjection)

There is also a blogging series that people can contribute to on the net. You can see that at www.lindachristas.net I believe.

(Start interjection)

This would provide extra detail to the article, but until there are verifiable sources for notability, there's no article. - Richfife 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(Stop interjection)

Keep in mind that Linda Christas is not a traditional school with a traditional campus, There are no buildings for the tax payers to support with the name Linda Christas over the doors. And, no reporters COVERING Linda Christas FOOTBALL. Linda Christas receives no tax money, nor tax favored money. They have approximately 4000 students internationally. I personally know two of the students currently studying to attend U.S. Universities next year who live in south east China (If it would help, I can ask their permission for you to contact them for verification.) You can contact any of the people on the Advisory Committee to ascertain the existence of the school if you wish. Surely, we are not going to be so petty as to deny that the MOST convincing and important material about Linda Christas, they have already published for the world to see.) Certainly that must count for something. If I asked the writer above to substantiate his or her existence, surely if Dr. Gregory Huckabee, former high ranking officer in the Adjutant Corps were willing to verify the fine work he/she (the writer above) were doing, wouldn't that be superior to his/her name being registered in a box score in the Baltimore Sun? Or are we so convinced that the traditional means of doing everything is what we want for Wikipedia. Dr. Shroeder P.S. I know Dr. Mason R. Ridge by reputation only. Is someone attempting to attack that good man? That would be sad indeed—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.241.76 (talk • contribs).

• Note thusfar the following sockpuppets of Oppieangel2000 have been confirmed and blocked: Butchalliran, Thelystrom, Tech27, GeorgeStanton, RolandPatina, ShirleyDobbins, Keepyoursocksdry, Bestofseven, Synqopation, Referee36, Julieismywife, Buddydebrill, Manysummers. Also blocked as sock: Drraymondridge. Pete.Hurd 15:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For a military article, Dr. Huckabee might count. For this one, not so much. I was replying to a post signed by "Dr. Mason Ridge", pointing out the inconsistency. You suddenly stepped in. - Richfife 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I can not find any listing for a "Dr. Raymond M. Ridge" or a "Dr. Raymond Mason Ridge" in any professional directories. What is his specialty? Thanks! - Richfife 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "Dr. Mason R. Ridge". Still no matches. Also and again, solicited testimonials from non-notable people don't count. We need notable people with relevant experience in the field speaking out entirely for themselves on their own dime, or it's a no go. - Richfife 17:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not one of the Linda Christas Advisory Committee receives a penny for lending their names to LC for verification purposes. It is simply a pro bono arrangement all around. The only thing that the members of the Advisory Committee are guilty of is being impressed enough with LC to be willing to link their names and reputations with Linda Christas.

Let me ask a question here: Let's take for our example the pioneering surgeon, Dr. Ronald Allison (put his name into the Google search engine) who sits on the Linda Christas Advisory Committee without pay. Is Wikipedia saying that BEFORE Dr. Allison knew enough about Linda Christas to agree to serve on the Advisory Committee without pay, he would have been a personage Wikipedia would have accepted for verification of its (LC's) existence. However, since Dr. Allison was evidently impressed enough to have his name linked with Linda Christas he is now disqualified? Does that go for the rest of the people who purposely allowed their names to be used for verification as well?.... though again NONE of the members of the Advisory Committee are paid a nickel for their efforts on behalf of the School. Is Wikipedia taking the position that if a celebrity or noted personality goes out of their way for FREE to help an organization, Wikipedia disqualifies that person or persons.

Said differently, I am getting the impression that, since Linda Christas' intent was to recruit noted, responsible people to be on their Advisory Committee, so that parents could verify the quality of the Linda Christas offerings, this very act of getting the person on the Committee disqualifies that person from verifying that the School exists. So, let's say Captain Jim Lovell joins the Committee as he might, he's considering it, but like the others, wanted, of course, to investigate before committing. Now, BEFORE Captain Lovell completes his study of the School to decide if he can support its programs, before he has done that, Wikipedia will accept Captain Lovell's judgment in terms of verifying Linda Christas' existence. But, if he actually becomes enthused about LC and accepts a seat on the Committee, then he is disqualified according to the Wikipedia rules?

It's really difficult for me to see the logic in that case. It would be like verifying that George Bush is still physically functional by disqualifying his Cabinet, and then asking the guard in the White House lobby for verification. Can this be? Can Wikipedia really have such a policy, and remain respected???

I am just wanting to understand who in the world an organization might call upon to know enough about it to be favorably impressed, BUT NOT TOO FAVORABLY impressed, i.e. a level of impression that is sufficient for them NOT to want to help that organization, and yet having enough information to satisfy Wikipedia rules.

I submit the names of the Linda Christas Advisory Committee for verification of LC's standing. There isn't a high school in the Nation with a more impressive board. Look at the boards of ANY of the high schools in your area or that have been previously listed on Wikipedia without fanfare. Other boards don't even come close, and yet, Wikipedia seems ready to reject what in effect is one of the finest assemblies of celebrity and doctoral talent for any high school in America. I hope I am somehow wrong here. I challenge anyone to try to find a better Advisory Group for a high school!! If LC is not listed by Wikipedia at the end of this discussion, I would say that the illogic of that decision would disqualify Wikipedia, at least in my mind, from ever being taken seriously. In that case, I would actually advise LC to stay away from Wikipedia. It would be a disgrace to BE listed if the logic I am hearing is accurate.I JUST DON'T BELIEVE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS ARE CARELESS OR ARBITRARY ENOUGH TO MAKE A DECISION OF THAT KIND. Please prove me right!BettyCharette

(Can we get a sock check on BettyCharette?) You're referring to a list that appears only on the website. There is no public reciprocal acknowledgement from any of the big names on it. I've only been able to establish contact with one member of the list so far, but they have neither confirmed nor denied anything yet. What the high schools in a particular area do is not in doubt. What Linda Christas does is in doubt. All information about its doings has come through the organization itself. I can make grandiose claims too. - Richfife 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It: You guys are not even attempting to think this through. To have those people pictured on the Internet WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION would cost Linda Christas millions in law suits, and it would be all over the newspaper. Where is the logic here. (Remember Barbara Streisand sued an environmnetalist for 16 million for just taking a photo of her house and putting it on the net.) This seems to be a bit like the inquisition. I mean any thoughtful person it seems to me would understand the reality of public images, and how much money some of these people command just for an appearance. For images to be placed without permission would be financial suicide, not to mention the national press panning Linda Christas forever. I give up people. At this time, I really don't believe anything any commentator would say would persuade you of the illogic of what you are saying here. This is not a good reflection of the kinds of individuals defending Wikipedia's position. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BettyCharette (talk • contribs).

"We must have the rights to do this because if we didn't we'd get sued" isn't an argument. We're trying to get at truth, but we're not getting past truthiness. - Richfife 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

KEEP IT: I agree, it's NOT an argument, It's the ONLY argument that means anything. That you don't accept it is marvelously illogical from my perspective. Why would a separate list anywhere mean anything?(I can put one on the net if you would like. I'll just write a blog, eh. Would you accept that? Of course not. Who do you think is going to be wanting to compile the Advisory Committee list of a private school? As an experiment, why don't you choose any celebrity. Then, go ahead and copy a photo and put your name next to it saying that the celebrity endorses you. I'm certain you wouldn't do that. WHY. You know why.BettyCharette

Already commented above. Naconkantari 21:12, 19 October 2006 (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.