Talk:Summit School (Nyack)/Archive 1

Anti-Summit Facebook page
This has link was apparently first added. It was then removed and then re-added. So, maybe it's time to discuss it.

Regardless of whether we as editors personally think regarding the relevance of the FB page, WP:ELREG states that "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article (see Official links below) or the link is part of an inline reference (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)." The topic of this article is the school and not the aforementioned Facebook page so WP:ELOFFICIAL is not applicable and, thus, the link is not acceptable per WP:FACEBOOK. Moreover, a Facebook page is generally not considered acceptable as reliable sources per WP:UGC. WP:SPS and WP:FACEBOOK, unless "it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject", which once again in this case is not the "Anti-Summit Facebook Page" Wikipedia article.

Simply adding the link using the rationale "maybe there's something to these anonymous IPs blasting this school" seems to be nothing more than original research. Maybe there is really something to these various IP's claims, but on Wikipedia what can be verified through reliable sources is what matters. If the school has problems and these problems have received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources per WP:PROVEIT, then such information should be directly added to the article and properly cited. Otherwise, the link fails Nos. 6, 10, 11 of WP:ELNO as well as WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Without any properly supported mentions of these problems within the article itself, this seems to be nothing but scandal mongering. If another editor feels the link belongs, then they should be able to show why by citing relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines which supports its inclusion. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC); edited 07:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history of this page, you'd realize that there have been reliable 3rd party sources, and they've been deleted as well. Of course there has also been some utterly moronic content added, so naturally, nobody in their right mind should object to the removal of that. BTW, this page should be merged with Summit Children's Residence Center, or vice versa. -User:DanTD (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response . I removed the Facebook link because I felt it was not acceptable per Wikipedia policy. I wasn't commenting on any of other links or material that was removed by other editors. If you believe that such information about the school's deserves to be mentioned and can be written about neutrally in accordance with WP:UNDUE, WP:SENSATION and perhaps even WP:N/CA and WP:VICTIM (If you mention any actual names), then be bold and re-add it. However, there is very little information in the article as it is, so only adding "negatives" which essentially turn the article into "Problems of Summit School (Nyack, New York)" might be seen as some as problematic per WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:ATTACK. Maintaining a neutral point of view is a tricky thing to do some times; Therefore, it might be a good idea to try and discuss your proposed additions here, WT:WPSCH or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability just to get some different opinions. Even though the school's article is not listed under WP:WPSCH, maybe it that WikiProject will help since it is, after all, about a school.
 * Regarding the merge, I tried to find some third-party sources to support this article, but did not have much luck. Most seem to be  either primary sources or just mention the school in passing. So, maybe the two articles should be merged. WP:MERGE says you can be bold and do it yourself. You could also start a new thread on this talk page named "Proposed merger" or something similar just to see if any one objects, but I personally don't think such a merger would be controversial. Finally, you can always ask for specific advice at WP:PM if you want to do the merge yourself if you're not sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your response is understandable. I have no objections to neutrality in this or any other article. The kids and ex-kids complaints against the school shouldn't be ignored, but we would have to keep it to a minimum. How much of a minimum that would be, well, I can't really give a number. As for the merger, if anything I probably will just go ahead and do it myself. -User:DanTD (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)