Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Mount Waldorf 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 to delete. Merge still possible. W.marsh 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Mount Waldorf School

Michael Mount Waldorf School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Come on guys this is a waste of space. We are an encyclopedia not a list of schools. Debaser23 10:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing to show notability of this school, and no references at all, so delete. Jayden54 11:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This school is obviously special is a number of ways, including being the area's only Waldorf Education school. The nomination's "Come on guys this is a waste of space" rationale is not only unnecessarily inflammatory, it doesn't cite any policy-based reasons for itself. (The nomination also lacks an apparent understanding of punctuation and sentence structure, but I won't dwell on the irony.) Highfructosecornsyrup 19:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I think "The nomination also lacks an apparent understanding of punctuation and sentence structure" is completely pointless towards this debate. Considering I am new here I am still a little bit confused about all of the policies so at least try to be a little bit considerate. I just thought it is a little irrelevant if we put every so called 'special' school on here. Debaser23 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment (reply to Highfructose) "Special" and "unique" do not equal "notable," unless outside publishers have taken note of the school's uniqueness and decided to therefore publish things about the school. But it doesn't look like they have in this case. And, association with a non-notable (or even notable) recording artist, youth conference, or organic market, do not imply notability of the school. Pan Dan 00:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the fact that some school is the "only" school of a particular type is a disingenuous region, it easily leads to all religious schools being notable so long as they are the "only" school of their denomination in the area: St. Joe's Lutheran (Missouri Synod) Nursery School of Podunk -- quite different of course than St. Paul's Lutheran (non-Missouri Synod) Nursery School of Podunk -- c'mon. Carlossuarez46 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure how the school's status as the only Waldorf education school in its area makes it notable. Extraordinary Machine 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, as nobody's replied, I'm voting to merge into Bryanston, Gauteng. Being the only school of a certain type in an area doesn't automatically make a school notable; it has to be notable for being the area's only school of that type. Extraordinary Machine 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. This school grants high-school diplomas, extrapolating from the information available in the article. The argument has been made that every secondary school is notable. Darkspots 00:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentt What argument? Repeating something many times doesn't give it any validity. JoshuaZ 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The nomination does not give any policy reasons why this article should be deleted. Also, as this article is a stub, it could be expanded to be more noteworthy. - Raker 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm unable to find any reasonable way of expanding it. JoshuaZ 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of notability -- this school does not appear to be described in many (or any) non-trivial outside sources from which to write a verifiable article. Pan Dan 01:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Sources included in article weakly support a claim of notability. I searched for additional sources at various sites, though the difficulty may be related to its remote location in South Africa. Justification of "waste of space" is not a valid reason and article has far more information than required by WP:NOT to exceed a directory entry. Having an AfD that doesn't even attempt to reference a relevant Wikipedia standard or guideline is not a good sign of responsible nomination. Alansohn 06:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect to Bryanston, Gauteng since there is little info about the school (the only really non-trivial detail that the school is a Waldorf school is apparent in the school name). Being the only school of a given type in a specific suburb is not a claim of notability especially when no indedenent sources have felt a need to discuss the matter. I agree with some of the keeps that the nomnination is less than compelling if not outright ridiculous but that shouldn't stop us from evaluating the article now that it is here on AfD. In so far as that, the school fails the highly generous WP:SCHOOLS and doesn't come even close to meeting the conditions in any draft of WP:SCHOOLS3. It is hard to justify this as a separate article. JoshuaZ 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If one of the most notable things is that a farmers market is held on the property, though apparently not under their sponsorship, the article is absurd. DGG 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 22:44, 5 December 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.