Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York School (Toronto)

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 (default to keep). The article has been significantly expanded, so those recommendations to delete based upon it only being directory information have been addressed and made largely moot. Similarly, keeps based on local notability (undemonstrated) and all high schools being notable (no wide consensus for such a view) were weak as well...This defaults to no consensus based on the lack of a substantially clear notability case as well as subpar keep arguments.

I have not, however, vetted the new information & sources and, as such, it may be worthwhile to re-assess the article as it currently stands. — Scientizzle 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] York School (Toronto)

York School (Toronto) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails to assert notability of institution; merely states the location. Aarktica 01:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless detail is added with citation to independent, reliable sources, providing significant coverage of the school.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Change to keep based on blue book sourcing.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, it just says where it's located. Oysterguitarist 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it is written now. No notable alumni, no historical value, no architectural value claimed in the article.Callelinea 03:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • N Speedy Delete article lacks enough significant coverage to provide notability. VanTucky (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is only for article that meet the criteria for speedy deletion. While someone might arguable say this meets A1/3 (empty), it is patently not within the ambit of CSD A7.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a recommendation in AFD's is used quite commonly (you might read a few), and it obviously doesn't suggest an article undergo the WP:SPEEDY process. It means the commentator doesn't see much room or points for discussion, that consensus is clearly leaning in a certain direction. It can also suggest that the AFD be closed before the typical waiting period. VanTucky (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No, speedy deletion is done under the criteria and only if articles meet the criteria, and does not take on special meaning in afd debates (nor is it a stand in for WP:SNOW, as you imply). Please don't conflate the fact that articles which have been nominated for afd sometimes also meet CSD criteria and are speedied, with speedy deletion meaning a different thing here. Read a few? That's quite an assumption!--Fuhghettaboutit 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
VanTucky, you're thinking of the snowball clause. Speedy deletion, as noted, has very specific criteria, and the particular one you have in mind should usually be cited in your !vote. Additionally, we don't use the distracting graphics in AFD that I know are used in other deletion processes. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as no clear claim to notability has been established. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am going to try to find enough material on this school to justify keeping the article, so please do not speedy delete it. Cardamon 10:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Cardamon 12:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The school is notable because of its unusual structure and history (how many high schools begin as nursery schools?) and because apparently it is the first school in Canada to offer the International Baccalaureate (IB) "from junior kindergarten (JK) to grade 12". Cardamon 12:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The International Baccalaureate claim is an outright lie: College International Marie De France in Montreal has long offered that program as a matter of course. Eusebeus 13:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I couldn't find College International Marie De France on the IBO's list of schools in Quebec. [1]. I also couldn't find any mention of the IBO on the website of College International Marie De France . Maybe you can point it out to me? Cardamon 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I went to the IBO's list of 247 IBO World schools in Canada which is here, and the claim checks out. There are indeed about 4 other schools in Canada accredited to teach all 3 IBO programs, but the York School was the first in Canada to be accredited to teach all three, in 2005. The other ~ 4 schools have been accredited to teach all three since 2007. Cardamon 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's a school and I see that the article is not orphan. Magioladitis 13:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks to Cardamon, this article now establishes notability with multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Any closer of this discussion should understand that the article was a one sentence stub at the time the AfD was filed and is a wholly different article than what was seen by the early participants. -- DS1953 talk 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A directory of private schools, this schools own website, and an alumni magazine are not reliable sources in establishing notability. VanTucky (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't forget the vanity press release site - another standout source! Eusebeus 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete still not apparently worthwhile on it's own IMO, but should better be merged into a suitable collection. SamBC 14:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All high schools are notable. Greg Grahame 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Contrary to the belief of such radical inclusionists, there is no project wide consensus or policy/guidline that supports the automatic notability of schools. That view is certainly contested, and is not a valid, stand-alone argument for keep. Schools are subject to WP:V and WP:Notability just like any other article, and this one, with it's flimsy, trivial coverage, does not meet those standards. VanTucky (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable in Toronto Taprobanus 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The school has been relatively free of scandal, unlike some other independent schools in Toronto. As Taprobanus points out, the school is notable in Toronto, despite not having the high profile of Upper Canada College or Bishop Strachan School. --Eastmain 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If it's locally notable, by the wikipedia definition, then there should be independent reliable sources. The links provided appear to be a press release, some directory entries, and the website of the school itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambc (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 July 2007
  • Keep Plenty of sources have been added since the original nomination, although editors who voted at the beginning don't seem to have kept up with the changes. As WP:N states: " The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." The Blue Book entry is longer than many newspaper articles and appears independent. That combined with the several other sources of lesser quality is more than enough to satisfy Wikipedia notability. Noroton 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • These sources seem, but for one, to be directory entries, press releases, and the school's own website. These are stated as not counting. The remaining source, a CBC article, mentions York School in passing. SamBC 02:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • And yet the language I quoted directly from the policy clearly allows it, or am I misreading it somehow? Noroton 03:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I should clarify what I meant: those sources are considered unacceptable when establishing notability. For self-published and press-release material, WP:NOTE clearly says that ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." This eliminates the self-published and press release sources as establishing notability. I'm still re-finding the mention of directory entries as not establishing notability. Once I've found it, I believe that the only notability-relevant source left is the CBC article with the passing mention. SamBC 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Further to this, there is a 'by-example' mention in WP:ORG that entries in a business directory don't establish notability. The reasoning is pretty simple - if existencein a directory established notability, pretty much every business and organisation would be notable, which they patently aren't. SamBC 13:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Please note that some of us who gave our opinion early on have kept up with the changes. I haven't changed my opinion because I haven't seen a single citation to a source that is: reliable and independent and treats the subject substantively (significantly, non-trivially; whatever WP:N word du jour you'd like to pick).--Fuhghettaboutit 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
            • What about the CBC News article? Cardamon 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
              • It hardly even mentions York School. SamBC 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
                • The mention of The York School is 2 paragraphs, 5 sentences, and 118 words, if I counted correctly.Cardamon 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • One paragraph introduces the York School, and the other mentions their plagiarism policy. And that 'and' should be an 'or', really, seeing as they're different ways of counting the same thing. In the overall scope of the article, it's in passing. They're talking about a general phenomenon and use the York School as an example. The article isn't about the York School by any stretch of the imagination. SamBC 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • SamBC I'm confused here about what you think about the Bunting & Lyon Blue Book source here (already a source in the article). It seems substantive and independent. It's irrelevant if the book is a directory since the coverage of the subject of the article seems fine. Noroton 22:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no issue with the Blue Book source as a source of information and providing verification. I have a problem with it establishing notability, as directories are generally, by definition, inclusive, and therefore not a good indicator of notability. SamBC 22:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline supports your position. It does not distinguish between directories and other sources. Is there some other spot in the notability guidelines that does?Noroton 22:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • The same reasoning is used in reference to business directories in WP:ORG. I'm not just relying on that, though; I'm also presenting supporting reason. SamBC 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
          • The only time business directories are mentioned at WP:ORG is in the last item at "Primary criterion", which states: Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. This is clearly not the same situation, since the only reason for citing business directories was that they provided only trivial coverage. The coverage at the B&L Blue Book is in no way trivial. Noroton 23:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • SamBC, to further pick up on a point we discussed earlier, the more specific WP:ORG notability guideline also seems to agree that one in-depth source combined with many not-in-depth sources is acceptable. Here's the language (quotes in italics): An organization is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. So far so good, only here is where it talks about depth of coverage of those sources: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Note where "multiple" comes in -- only if the depth of coverage is not substantial. That means one substantial source is enough, correct? The following sentence only builds upon the preceding one and talks about all the sources being nonsubstantial: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Where is my reading wrong here? Noroton 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • But there isn't substantial treatment in any independent, reliable sources. As already noted, the CBS source is quite (substantially) peripheral. When we talk about reliable sources and significant treatment and notability (as we have redefined that word), we must not lose track of the underlying purpose, which is to verify that an encyclopedia article (a tertiary source entry synthesizing reliable sources for its content) can be written on the subject. So far, what can be used to write an encyclopedic, verified entry (here after apparently quite a bit of research, which is commendable) is material verifying the school's existence and some meager detail that can be used as the basis of one or two sentence—an apparent permanent-sub-stub as to its policy conforming content.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • What problem do you have with the Bunting & Lyon Blue Book source here (the first footnote in the article)? Noroton 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's absolutely fine, but doesn't apply here if directories don't establish notability. If they do, then that's fine and dandy. SamBC 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, where does it say in policy that they don't? Noroton 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, WP:ORG makes the point for business directories, and it's not hard to extend the reasoning to other directories of organisations. Policies aren't exhaustive, they're a start. If they say somethign is excluded for a reason, it's not too wild to imagine that anything else to which the same reasoning applies be excluded. Beyond that, not all reasons for exclusion are in policy. I've made an argument that directories can't really establish notability as they are inherently inclusive. One cannot simply refute a logical argument by saying "yeah, but what does policy say?" unless policy contradicts it. You refute a logical argument with another logical argument. SamBC 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to say that I don't support deletion of this article; I think it should be merged into a relevant compendium and redirected, per my arguments at User:Sambc/wip/Sprawl Control Policy Proposal. SamBC 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I posted this above (23:29, 16 July 2007), but I think you didn't see it, so here it is again (I think it addresses most of what you said): "The only time business directories are mentioned at WP:ORG is in the last item at "Primary criterion", which states: Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. This is clearly not the same situation, since the only reason for citing business directories was that they provided only trivial coverage. The coverage at the B&L Blue Book is in no way trivial." My argument here is both citing the rules and using logic, I think. Noroton 00:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • That's valid, but let me put the logical part of my reasoning this way: what's the Blue Book's inclusion criteria? SamBC 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't know and it doesn't matter as far as WP:N and WP:ORG are concerned. According to its Web site it's a big, fat book, and I assume it tries to get every accredited private school that it can between its covers. The point for WP:N and WP:ORG is that the information be reliable and that the organization be notable enough to have received coverage from sources that are reliable. That's the essential point of Wikipedia notability policy -- not that a school be well-known or famous. I'm just pointing out Wikipedia policy, you're free to disagree with it and have your own policy, but you and other editors should be clear about where Wikipedia's ends. I just don't want anyone to think it is against Wikipedia policy to use the P&L Blue Book as a source helping to establish notability.Noroton 14:51, 17 July 2007 (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.