Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Day School

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillel Day School

NN primary school, was deprodded with the explanation "school". There is no claim to notability that I could find in the article. --Kuzaar-T- C- 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, primary schools are not suitable for Wikipedia articles. Not notable, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Proto::type 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I'd speculate that the PROD was removed because deletion of well-formed school articles is a often controversial topic. WP:PROD states the process is for non-controversial deletes. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm with Proto- elementary schools are rarely notable, and this one is no exception. -- Kicking222 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - "I'm with Proto" is my mantra. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no claim of notability. Mr Stephen 15:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A very few primary schools might be notable, e.g. historically important schools founded by famous educators to demonstrate an important educational philosophy. Maria Montessori's "Children's House" in San Lorenzo, Rome, Summerhill, Froebel's 1837 Play and Activity Institute in Germany are notable. Most elementary schools are not notable, and this one isn't. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original prodder whho believes that this article contains no assertion of notability. I also didn't see any at the school's website. My edit summary when I assigned stubs on new page patrol said I was considering prodding in a day or two. Work got busy and that period turned into two weeks. GRBerry 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; article makes no effort to claim notability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. How is it anything but indiscriminate if every elementary school is automatically entitled to an entry without any critical thought? Agent 86 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Not Applicable
2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).No
3. Travel guides. Not even close
4. Memorials. Nope
5. News reports. Not Applicable
6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Not
7. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. No
8. Instruction manuals - Not Applicable
9. Internet guides - No
10. Textbooks and annotated texts - Not a chance
11. Plot summaries - Nope
WP:NOT does NOT mean "articles about things I am unfamilar with or don't care about". I sincerely hope that those using WP:NOT as a rationalization will provide an explanation for their vote above and specify which one of the above criteria this article fails. Otherwise, I hope that we will see votes retracted. Alansohn 03:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment- I remind you to Assume Good Faith, Alansohn, as I have for comments like this before. Accusing people interested in cleaning up the dictionary of wanting to delete "everything they're unfamiliar with" is bad form. Additionally, I would like to point out that the list you so kindly provided us with is certainly not a list comprehensive to the point of exclusion, it only provides a handful of examples that are particularly bad repeat offenders of what Wikipedia is not. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Refering to WP:NOT without indicating which part of WP:NOT is being violated is a questionable demonstration of good faith. The WP:NOT criteria indicate that the list included are items for which consensus has been reached. Items not on the list place a greater burden on those appealing to WP:NOT to justify why they should not be reatined as is. Alansohn 23:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above arguments. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and elementary schools have miniscule encyclopedic notability. This isn't a high school. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. — Haeleth Talk 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well written and informative article about a notable school. Contrary to minority belief, the world will not end if we achieve the goal of providing the sum of all human knowledge. Silensor 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, not to shock anyone... but it also will not end if one school article is deleted.--Isotope23 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, disagree with merge. Keep or Delete, but this school has no relevance or importance in the context of Farmington Hills, Michigan. It really stands or falls on its own merits.--Isotope23 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor and School Project Policy. Do not delete schools. Capit 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no policy. WP:SCHOOL failed, and the creation of a wikiproject does not confer notability to its subjects. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Capit was blocked indef as a sockpuppet Jaranda wat's sup 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notability is not and has never been a requirement for inclusion on wikipedia. Verifiability is. All data in this article is factually verifiable.  ALKIVAR™ 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, good article, and how are we supposed to cover Jewish education in Farmington Hills without covering this school? Kappa 23:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, non-notable primary school Jaranda wat's sup 00:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please article is written well and verifiable too notability is a opinion matter Yuckfoo 04:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a bloody primary school. NN. -- GWO
  • Keep. A verifiable article about about a real place. Meets WP:V requirements as pointed out above. -- Nicodemus75 07:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some comments above claim that the information in the article is verifiable. However, as far as I can see, the only attributed source that might help with verification is the school website. The policy WP:VERIFY states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.", and the guideline WP:RS states "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources.". Where are the third-party sources that back up the various claims in the article? I think that, as it stands, the article is marginal on policy at WP:VERIFY. Mr Stephen 08:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because this is a perfectly acceptable article for a (Jewish) school of which there are thousands (of non-Jewish) similar ones listed on Wikipedia. Any Jewish school that has existed for almost fifty years already makes it notable. If this article were to be deleted then all the entries in Category:Conservative Jewish day schools or in all of Category:Jewish day schools should go which would be ludicrous. Note: This nomination makes no sense. If it is allowed then say goodbye to all that's in Category:Schools. Finally, it is important to realize that Notability is relative and cannot be "judged" by just one standard. What is notabale to Jews may not be notable to Mongolians and vice versa etc. IZAK 10:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment- I disagree entirely. If by your above argument you mean that we should have either no or extremely lax standards that we should hold articles containing information, that defeats the purpose of having a level of encyclopedicness to the project. If having a standard, however, means that some articles aren't up to it, perhaps that implies that the subject is not appropriate for this encyclopedic project. To address the second issue, notability of a subject can indeed vary from group to group, and please take notice that in the essay on notability, the fundamental policy is cited that one must have been the subject of independant verifiable scrutiny, which this subject cannot claim- its verifiable source (the NCES information) mentions it only in passing and cannot be claimed to be solely a study on this subject alone. I agree with you that many of the subjects in the Schools category have a shaky claim to inclusion. If you feel this is the case then I encourage you to go through the proper processes and nominate the questionable articles for deletion. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schools should be listed, in my opinion, only if they have certain achievements, impact or historical significance (per WP:NOT). I don't find any of it in the Hillel day school. I also think that most of the schools listed in Wikipedia should be deleted, unless they meet these criteria. --Gabi S. 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per IZAK. Evolver of Borg 12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim of notability is made (even relative to a lower notability standard for Jewish schools, as some people have proposed). Fireplace 12:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and what??! Wikipedia is not paper - this deletionist tendency is getting absurd. --Leifern 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools have a far more inherent level of notability above and beyond the thousands of other article categories in Wikipedia. There is no inherent issue with the article or its contents. The failure to develop (and agree upon) objective criteria for schools has left this debate in the hands of deletionists who will vote to delete anything with which they are unfamiliar or uninterested. This is just another example of deletecruft. Alansohn 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I must disagree on strong terms with most of what you say. If you hold the opinion that this article is being included while inappropriate less-notable subject are not, then I remind you that the AFD process is every bit as available to those other subjects as it is to this one. Further, I would like to remind you, after reading your accusations of this article being "left in the hands of deletionists who will vote to delete anything with which they are unfamiliar or uninterested", and how this is "deletecruft", of one of the Wikipedia guidelines regarding assuming good faith of editors who disagree, and additionally the possibility that people who disagree with you might merely have different standards for what they perceive to be a subject about which an encyclopedic article may be written. There is a gulf of difference in the idea that there's some secret brotherhood of deletionists out to get all of the valuable articles, and the idea that a large portion of the editor community does not thing that a primary school with no claim to notability is not appropriate material for a Wikipedia article (see WP:NOT, namely "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.) --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment....has left this debate in the hands of deletionists who will vote to delete anything with which they are unfamiliar or uninterested. This is just another example of deletecruft. You owe a lot of people an apology for your poor remarks. —Encephalon 04:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this entry does not help our goal of being an encyclopedia Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hipocrite. Zeq 15:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an advertisement for a private business. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: School is a private school, not a private business. If this is justification for vote to Delete, I hope it will be retracted. Alansohn 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • This (admittedly apparently not-for-profit) business is announcing the availability of their services on Wikipedia. That's advertising. The fact that it is a school is hardly an exception to WP:NOT a soapbox/adboard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I guess I have to remind you yet again to assume good faith. Your constant assumption of bad faith and policy violation on the part of the authors of school related articles is troublesome, and frankly, you should know better. It is a patent assumption of bad faith to categorically state the author of an article about this school is somehow "...a business announcing the availability of services..." Since I am fairly certain that you are not suggesting that the school itself somehow wrote the article, I can only guess that you are talking about its' author. Please provide evidence that the author is "advertising" on behalf of the school, rather than simply creating an article about a school which is like THOUSANDS of others to be found on wikipedia. Unless you have such evidence, this accusation is offensive and uncivil. In this particular case, it also violates WP:BITE.--Nicodemus75 07:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
          • The intent of the author isn't really in question. The author may have been a school project member working down a list, a former student, a teacher at the school, a paid advertising agent, or the very unlikely result of a random letter generator. I really don't care. This is a business offering a service, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to offer them a venue to announce the availability of their service, regardless of who wrote the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Should we extend this to other "businesses" that offer services and have articles on Wikipedia? Should we nominate Microsoft, Ford, Google and University of Chicago because they offer services that can be purchased? --Stephane Charette 19:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Absolutely. Businesses should meet a notability standard so that their articles aren't just advertisements. This business flunks WP:CORP miserably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Someone should probably let the WP:CORP folks know that their guideline doesn't seem to be describing actual practice in this instance. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: No matter how many times you repeat it, the school is a private school, not a private business. It is a 501(c)3 charitable organization that "depends on philanthropic support to fulfill its mission". If this is justification for vote to Delete, I sincerely hope it will be retracted. Alansohn 22:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It still relies on recuiting students, as opposed to students being routed to it by the state. A not-for-profit business is still a business. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Can you point me to where in WP:CORP it specifies that charitable, not-for-profit organizations and schools should be treated under the same criteria as for-profit businesses? Alansohn 23:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Can you show me where in WP:CORP where it says that not-for-profit businesses are exempt? Alternately, can you show me a more-applicable notability standard? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No need to delete schools. If anything schools attract a wider audience to Wikipedia when students find an article on their own school here. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Siensor -- Librarianofages 02:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, most schools are notable enough for WP, as is this. bbx 04:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:DP. --Usgnus 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm curious... what part of WP:DP are you referring to?--Isotope23 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, this is an important school. Bahn Mi 21:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment- In what context are you reading any claim to the school's importance in the article? I've gone over it several times, and have seen none. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Dpbsmith. —Encephalon 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, perfectly useful article. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable primary school. JoshuaZ 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Allow for organtic growth and inheirently notable is are lousy arguements, nothing is inheirently keepable. School/no school this is advertisement. As someone else pointed out, this is not a public educational institution, so its not a default routing point to an education institution as required by law just about everywhere in the united states. Fails WP:CORP Kevin_b_er 23:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Vegaswikian 02:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per IZAK. 172 | Talk 05:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor, Yuckfoo, Izak, and MPerel. The subject appears to be notable enough to a particular community. Dauster 10:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Notability within a community or limited group does not imply notability, and, as stated above, is mostly irrelevant. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. You're right, notability is irrelevant. WP:NN is an essay and "notability" is nowhere listed in WP:DP as a valid criterion for the deletion of a school article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicodemus75 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Education. Jon513 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You'll have to help me here. There are only about seven sentences in the section you link to, but I cannot find anything that suggests this school is a strong keep. Where do you mean? Mr Stephen 22:06, 31 July 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.