Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schoolhouse Earth

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 of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 09:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schoolhouse Earth

I tagged this for speedy as advertising, but the creator of the page appended a bit more info, added the "hangon" tag, and noted on the talk page an intent to modify the page such that it was no longer advertising (albeit ostensibly with eleemosynary aims). I removed the speedy tag but nevertheless believe the article, inasmuch as it references a non-notable organization (to-wit, a Google search returns many hits, but none--as far as I can tell--to this project) and seems destined to remain advertising (since there don't seem to be any organizational accomplishments of one might write), should be deleted. Delete Joe 05:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

...I may not be able to address the concerns that give rise to this recommendation. Although I might concede that the organization in question is non-notable, I wonder if the absence of Google results is in itself, evidence of that. I will clearly describe here the current state of the organization, and may ultimately concede that an article in Wikipedia is not merited. But I have a sense that the presence of such an article will serve both the organization in question and Wikipedia. The organization is currently formed by fewer than a dozen individuals and has just been newly formed. So accomplishment of note is as yet undelivered.

There are three objectives I have with respect to submission of this item. The first is to provide a clean place in the public commons that identifies the mission and scope of the organization Schoolhouse Earth. In this place, public comment is invited and open access is available both for endorsement or concern. A secondary (and somewhat unstated) objective is to publicly invite commentary about namespace conflict. We can find no significant evidence of an organization that is using this name and that has these objectives. The appearance in Wikipedia will help to unearth any prior claims to the name that we have not yet identified. The third objective is (secondarily again, and certainly) that of raising public exposure of the organization and its mission. It cannot help but happen that if we lucidly explain the mission of this organization, that there will be many who wish to express support either through contribution of their efforts or other resources. This is not our direct aim with this article, but it is inevitably a side-effect.

I alluded to the idea that the article may serve Wikipedia goals as well. Perhaps this is in an indirect way, but it is an intention of the organization in question both to utilize Wikipedia content in its curriculum, but also to create curriculum that has learners participate in wikipedia as content editors and providers.

This is what I'm thinking about the whole thing. --Agentv 06:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• "The organization is currently formed by fewer than a dozen individuals and has just been newly formed. So accomplishment of note is as yet undelivered." — In 2 sentences you have just summarised the main reason why the article must go. Wikipedia is, basically, not the place to "raise public exposure" of new organisations. That is best left to the organisation's own home page. Delete, without prejudice to future re-creation iff the organisation becomes notable. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 07:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it doesn't get any easier than the subject coming out and saying that they're nn. Lankiveil 11:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
• Delete, you said it. ProhibitOnions 13:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete By the author's own description, this organization does not meet WP:N. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to publicize new enterprises, no matter how well-intentioned. Fan1967 15:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and author - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree then. The page should be deleted. --Agentv 17:14, 20 March 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.