Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Global Academy
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 -- Samir धर्म 03:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ross Global Academy
Badly written article about a charter school that just started this month Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless notability is demonstrated. May be related to (also AFD'd) Nathan Damweber. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Nigel (Talk) 12:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The school seems to be better thought out than a lot of others, which together with its celebrity supporters makes it notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The article cites no sources, much less the independent, reliable sources needed to establish notability. If it is indeed better thought out, someday in the future it will be notable, producing coverage by independent reliable sources allowing us to write an article adhering to the core policies. This article isn't it now. GRBerry 01:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Presuming that someone sources this better between now and then end of the discussion. If the claims made are accurate than it easily is notable and will almost certainly have WP:RS sources on it. JoshuaZ 02:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This has to be the most inexcusable and unacceptable justification for deleting an article I have ever seen. Not one word or clause of the nominator's "reason" is a valid cause for deletion. There are about 37 tags that could and should have been applied to ask for rewriting the article or providing sources, and age is not an automatic disqualifier. The article makes explicit claims of notability based on the type, format, partnerships, facilities, approach and innovative practices used by the school. This AfD, and the fact so many sheep will submit knee-jerk deletes, demonstrates in one sentence the fundamental problems with this process. Alansohn 02:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No sources, article does not meet NPOV, does not meet WP:Schools. Catchpole 07:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep pending addition of reliable sources to article. Article provides strong claims to notability. However, I must disagree with Alansohn's summarily uncivil comments above, labeling people who think standards are needed for an article as "sheep" and "knee-jerk"-editing editors. I think it is outstandingly naive to assert that people who disagree with you are operating on so simple a level or are so childish. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I support standards; nothing I state here opposes them. While I have come to a different conclusion from those who have specified delete, I respect the fact that they have read and researched the article and came to an independent opinion that the article should be deleted based on their interpretation of Wikipedia standards. What I oppose are individuals who will take a blatantly invalid excuse for an AfD and then make a "knee-jerk" vote "Delete per nom". Those people are "sheep". Alansohn 15:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: That's a strong assertion, that you somehow know other editors' motivation for expressing their opinion better than they themselves do in AFDs. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I claim no gifts of telepathy. I am simply stating that the rationalizations used for this AfD are invalid. Any person (as above) who says "Delete per nom" is a knee-jerk response by an individual who will agree that articles should be deleted because they are "Badly written", which covers the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles. I wish these individuals would express an opinion, as others have, based on the content of the article, not on the text of the AfD nomination. Alansohn 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: That's a strong assertion, that you somehow know other editors' motivation for expressing their opinion better than they themselves do in AFDs. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I support standards; nothing I state here opposes them. While I have come to a different conclusion from those who have specified delete, I respect the fact that they have read and researched the article and came to an independent opinion that the article should be deleted based on their interpretation of Wikipedia standards. What I oppose are individuals who will take a blatantly invalid excuse for an AfD and then make a "knee-jerk" vote "Delete per nom". Those people are "sheep". Alansohn 15:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The school has several mentions in the press at this very moment. Yamaguchi先生 23:58, 29 September 2006 23:58, 29 September 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.
