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.
Delete I was trying to nom for AfD and you beat me to it. Looks like one of the students is unhappy with the school. (Judging by the writing style, that might be justified...sorry...couldn't resist). --
BugturdTalk01:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oh hang on ... perhaps not just a Sunday school. The two links on the article both pointed that way (the first listed only Sunday hours, and the second pointed to a church, but with not details. However
this suggests otherwise. I'd still like to get a better feel how big the school is?
Nfitz06:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete pending verifiable information on accreditation and government licensing. I'm not clear on whether this is a real school, or just a collection of homeschooled kids in a church program. More signficant than its status, is the verifiability of status, which doesn't seem to exist yet. The links provided don't mean much. Also, I don't understand why the church web site, say nothing of this. I may well be missing something, so correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll happily switch to keep. The one place I could find a little info was at
ACSI (which accredits K-12 Christian schools), but that wasn't helpful, as they're listed as a member, but not accredited. So, now I really have no idea what the status of this school is. --
Rob11:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. Perhaps I misread the policy, but I thought 'cleanup' tagged poorly written articles on valid topics were supposed to be... well... cleaned up, not deleted.
Cynical17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
The problem isn't poor writing, or need of cleanup. Nobody can fix this article without verifiable information. Currently, there's no confirmation this church operates this school, as the church doesn't even mention the school it supposedly founded. It's worth noting that the Seattle Times entry for the school, mentions the church's web site, but gives a dead-link. If we can't tell people if the school is currently open, how can we tell them useful information? --
Rob19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
The schools
website seems current. Based on the size of the staff, the enrolement estimate seems reasonable. Not sure where the (now deleted) reference to $450 tuition comes from, as that was what was making me suspicious; for it is listed as $4,125 to $4,550 on the website. I'm tempted to change my vote.
Nfitz23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that was quite helpful, as I couldn't find it previously. I now, just found confirmation it is a state approved school, with this
PDF document from the state. So, now I'll reconsider my vote (but I still wish to find more independent information). --
Rob23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete even with rewrite, I still don't see real notability, at least not that hundreds of thousands of other schools couldn't claim. The references make it clear that it has been mentioned in Seattle-area newspapers; what school isn't frequently discussed in its local papers?
Ergot02:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. Based on Seattle press this school has been around for years. Maybe we should allow editors more than one day to build the article. --
JJay13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Maybe editors should follow policy and include sources with their contributions, in the first place, and not waste the time of others. --
Rob20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Good point
Colin Kimbrell. I notice the article was AfD tagged after two minutes. Maybe the editor would have provided sources if someone asked or used the unreferenced template. Of course, AfD is also a great way to welcome new editors... --
JJay22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Seems kind of tame to me and might even be true. The last two lines could have been and were dealt with by editing. --
JJay01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Uh, "might be true", doesn't cut it. Verifiably true is the standard. There is something seriously wrong, when somebody makes an unverified statement about an organization, that's not sourced, which could do serious harm to the organizations reputation. Declaring in public an organization has financial problems has a great way of becoming a self-fullfilled prophecy. If somebody decided not to send their kids to a school, or not take a job there, because they read it was closing at Wikipedia, the school would be more than justified in holding us to blame for any such harm. I realize it is a harsh thing to say, but the original version of this article, should never have been written in the form it was, and was of net-negative value to Wikipedia. --
Rob01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Rob, I know you mean well, but please, try to stay calm for two seconds. See above where I said that editing was the solution. That to me is the better approach as opposed to deleting an article on a school based on a vague unreferenced line on "financial problems".
WP:AGF applies to newbies as well, so instead of tagging the article after two minutes, a further option would have been to question the submitting editor. You also need to realize that not everyone has your skills in concocting these school articles. People contribute based on their abilities. Until the wiki completely changes the rules regarding article creation, you are going to have to live with the fact that many articles start as pathetic little stubs that do not meet your lofty standards. That is the nature of the beast. It is a net positive. --
JJay01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep the new version. Delete from history
the original version that contained a *potentially* defamatory claim about the school. Nothing signficant of the original version was used in the current version, so GFDL attribution requirements shouldn't be an issue. --
Rob05:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Merge with
West Seattle or delete. If this is the "much improved" version, I shudder to think of what the original must have looked like (and no, I won't punish myself by looking at the history.)
Denni☯01:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.