Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Christian School (Tampa, Florida)


 * 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 keep. Consensus appears to have solidified in favor of keeping it based on coverage identified during discussion Star   Mississippi  02:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge Christian School (Tampa, Florida)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This old stub about a small local (Tampa, Florida) private school has multiple problems, most importantly that it doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (organizations and companies) as it has received pretty much zero significant third-party attention over the years. I discovered this when I set out to rewrite the blatantly promotional text but found scant souces, leading me to list it here. Zeng8r (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC) NOMINATOR'S ADDENDUM: Upon further review, it might meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but I'll leave it here for discussion anyway. Zeng8r (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Comment I have removed the mission section, as it was poorly written and non-encyclopaedic. The school is currently receiving some local coverage due to a legal dispute, so perhaps this could help establish notability. JonnyDKeen (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough sourcing available to satisfy WP:GNG, as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I did some research on this and the legal dispute a few days ago. From what I can tell the case is still going through the courts and while it has some coverage, there's zero indication that it will be notable long-term. In the meantime Wikipedia isn't a news source. If the legal case does ever become notable though there's reason an article can't be created about it specifically, but that wouldn't automatically mean the school is also notable on it's own outside of the legal case IMO. So there doesn't seem to be anything to justify keeping the article at this point, if at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, delete is usually not a good outcome for school AfDs, since good merge/redirect targets generally can be found. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looking for possible merge targets. I see the school was founded by the Seminole Presbyterian Church, who we don't have an article on but who are documented at https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2002/02/02/seminole-presbyterian-church/
 * Is it a Native American school? If so, which subcategory of Category:Native American schools would it belong to? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply No, nothing to do with the Seminole people; the church that founded the school (though not the current school campus) is located in the Seminole Heights neighborhood. As a small, independent, non-denominational private school, I can't think of a good merge & redirect candidate. :shrug: Zeng8r (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, for lack of a good merge target. It's possible that a better location for this content will come up, e.g. somone ccreates a List of independent religious schools in Florida; in the meantime, I'm inclined to dislike deleting verifiable content because of the accident that we don't have a good place to put it. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There appears to have been another legal case involving staff-lead prayer from a few years ago other sources like this exist. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Law suites are a dime a dozen. Especially with religious organizations. To the point of being extremely run of the mill. Did the legal case go anywhere or is it just more controversy for it's own sake like the current one seems to be? If the first case didn't go anywhere then I don't think it's worth having an article purely about a couple of law suites that never led to anything. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid or gossip website. We can't just make unsubstantiated, controversial claims about organizations any more then we can people either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will find more sources. Also, how are lawsuits "run of the mill?" Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you go. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/91338551/short-article-on-florid-christian-school/Here are two] more controversial examples. I haven't even used Google yet. Also, the fact that including the information may be a WP:BLP violation does not mean the sources don't count toward notability. It just means they can't be included in the article, hence why I didn't add any content to the article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:MILL a run-of-the-mill topic is "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." Going by the statistics there are about 40 million lawsuits filed every year. So the question would be what makes these law suites un-ordinary compared to the 39,999,999 (times however many years you feel like going back) other ones? You can't go purely on the exitence of coverage in those cases either. That's why I drew the comparison to tabloids. Maybe tabloids have articles about what celebrities eat at which eat at which restaurants, but there is nothing un-ordinary or un-common about celebrities eating at restaurants. So we don't include such information in Wikipedia. Even if there's coverage of it in news outlets.


 * Also, there is no instance that I'm aware of where an article would be notable/keepable but completely void of information because we can't cite the references we have access to. Otherwise, we would just have an indiscriminate database of external links. Which isn't the purpose of articles. The fact that you can't add the information to the article or it will be removed just goes to show there shouldn't be an article on this school. Especially if that's all we have. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage as identified in this discussion so deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - RS for this has now been identified. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - we have had four keep !votes and no non-keep !votes since relisting, which would normally be sufficient for all but the most deletionist closers to close as keep. However, while the original proposer of deletion now seems ambivalent about the delete rationale, we do have the other delete !voter vigorously arguing that the coverage is not of the sort to pass the notability bar.
 * I think this is (yet another) AfD where the notability criteria, which essentially are the peace treaty between the inclusionist and deletionist tendencies, are failing to provide useful guidance on what is best for the encyclopedia. Could we try to bring the debate around to whether the sourcing is of a nature that allows a reasonable article to be written and, if not, what should be the fate of the verifiable, potentially useful material in the article? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It could always be merged/redirected to the education section of the Tampa, Florida article. That's usually the direction that is taken in cases like this where there is a few sources, but nothing that would work for a useful article. I doubt your going to get any kind of meaningful debate from anyone at this point about if that's the best option for the encyclopedia or not though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * According to SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the general preference for ATD outcomes over delete outcomes, that merge/redirect result would be preferable to delete, wouldn't it? Is there an actual reason to put aside SCHOOLOUTCOMES and delete? I see no exceptional problem with the article that would justify TNT. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The way I see it, there is an overwhelming consensus here in this discussion for this to be kept. The overall opinions are One weak Keep, Three Keeps, and one strong keep vs just one delete... and even the nominator is having second thoughts on his own nomination. Personally, I wouldn't waste any more editor's time on it and just put it through as a keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the numbers, a delete close of the discussion as it stands would get overturned at DRV. But DRV is needless fuss and bad closes are a thing, so I prefer crystal clear AfDs when they are not too much work to achieve. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Newspapers.com yielded some articles that contribute to its notability and verify the multiple name changes. I've left the urls on the article talk page. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per reliable sources identified in this discussion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2022 (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.