Talk:Laurel School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Independent reliable source material
Follow-up from Wikipedia:Help_desk#Viloation_notice. Generally, Wikipedia articles utilize reliable source information that is independent from the topic itself. The information posted in the article seems to be directly from the Laurel School. In other words, it seems that the information posted is not independent from Laurel School, which is the topic of the Laurel School article. Laurel School giving Wikipedia a free license to use such information in the Laurel School article still does not make that infomation independent from Laurel School. If Laurel School has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Laurel School (as described at General notability guideline), someone may seek to have Laurel School deleted from Wikipedia. The school has been around since 1896, so it seems likely that the school has received press coverage in the past 100+ year. While the article may not be deleted, it may continue to have various tags posted on top of it until the article is rewritten using independent reliable source material. The article should be written using material from those press clippings and cited to those press clippings rather than from the school itself. Laurel School may have copies of their press clippings. Regarding the notice posted on the article, the article still seems to read like an advertisement. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio material deleted
I deleted the material taken from About Laurel School. Since When permission is confirmed was not followed, the posted material falls under Wikipedia:Copyright violations. In any event, the Laurel School website material is not independent of Laurel School and is not proper for the article. There seems to be material in the article history that could be used in the article (this list for example.). -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since there is a large OTRS permission tag with a OTRS ticket number on this discussion page one it is safe to say it is not a copyright violation. Whether is it is proper for the article is something else of course. Garion96 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The trouble with such permission is that it is not clear from the article what content of the article was authorized to be derived from http://www.laurelschool.org/ as it appeared around 20 March 2007. I agree that it seems likely that the deleted material is not a copyright violation. Unfortunately, the information is not proper for the article since it is not independent. 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. It's presence seem sto discourage others from finding independent material for the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Christine Chubbuck
Christine Chubbuck is without question a notable alumna of the Laurel School--in fact, probably more notable than nearly everyone else in the lengthy alumnae list--and so any future attempts to remove her should be quickly undone. Arsene (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)