Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairmont Preparatory Academy (2nd nomination)


 * 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 to delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 21:52Z 

Fairmont Preparatory Academy

 * — (View AfD)

Prior decision to delete was overturned at DRV and is now back for reconsideration. An intermediate userficiation did not result in changes to the article, so is back as the original. Procedural-listing-no-opinion-from-me. ~ trialsanderrors 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The three or so facts on the article are sourced, however, the school does not appear to pass the primary notability criterion, as I cannot find evidence of multiple, independent, non-trivial published works specifically about the school, as opposed to briefly featuring it. Googling turns up mostly directory entries and league tables, and of course we can't synthesize from those.  No recommendation yet.  Chris cheese whine 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete A brief search through the Gale and Proquest peridocial databases yields about 13 newspaper mentions. All seem to be about individual students rather than the school itself. There are two articles (in local paper, the Orange County Register) about stellar performance in nationwide high school science comeptitions. There were a couple articles about students who did some humanitarian projects, again from local paper. LA Times has an article profiling a student who "Easily Jumps Language Barrier, Keeps Going; With an awesome 5.1 grade-point average, Oanh Nguyen has earned a spot at USC's medical school" I don't know if this confers notability. I'm leaning towards no becuase none of the articles had the school as a subject, thus failing WP:SCHOOL Copysan 06:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As to the 5.1 GPA, accepted wisdom would suggest that it would still be honour-by-association. Chris cheese whine 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5.1 GPA is hardly an honor. I had over a 5.1 (just take a couple APs and Honors), yet I didn't have any articles written about me. In any case, GPA is a relative measurement, based on how hard a schools' teachers grade. (See Grade_inflation) We should not be basing a school's notability off of a single person (or even multiple people) with a high GPA. I'd even hold off on basing school notability on average standardized test score (ie SATs). (However, if a school was identified as a high performing school and parents adamantly try to get their kids into it, like what happened in some San Francisco schools this past year, then I'd say that is notable) Copysan 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, honour-by-association. As in, "the kid did something good, therefore the school is good".  Converse of guilt-by-association. :)  Chris cheese whine 11:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a notability critera... The closest is probaby "The school has notable alumni or staff" (WP:SCHOOL), but the student is not notable. Copysan 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but we just don't do notability-by-association. Ever.  So it's not something that would confer any sort of notability on the school itself.  Chris cheese whine 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So were in agreement? Copysan 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a stub in progress, it's fully cited, have to keep it Mets 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We have to keep it, according to what? Not being funny, just curious.  Chris cheese whine 08:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete us utterly non-notable. Stammer 11:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep First the article, then the process: The school has been recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program the highest honor granted to a school in the United States. We seem to have consensus at both WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3 that selcetion for a national honor by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program is an extremely strong claim of notability. The article will still benefit from expansion but it seems that some are too intent on destroying articles to allow that. This AfD seems to be yet another extremely bad faith nomination made just hours after the school survived a DRV, showing that there was a broad consensus among Wikipedians that the previous AfD process was contaminated by bias. Without allowing any opportunity to improve the article after the end of the DRV, this AfD seems to be further proof that there is no intention to improve Wikipedia, but a concerted effort to impose a narrow deletionist view in the face of an overwhelming consensus to the contrary. Couldn't you have waited a few more hours -- maybe even a few days -- before you started your attacks again? Alansohn 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You (continue to) wrongly assume that a claim to notability automatically implies notability. It does not.  Yes, Fairmont has a claim to notability -- being a Blue Ribbon school -- indicating that non-trivial outside coverage is possible.  However, actual notability is shown by actually finding such coverage, which we can use to write a good Wikipedia article.  Yet the only non-trivial outside source that anybody has found in the 10 days of the first AFD and the DRV is the 255-word write-up in (the local edition of) the LA Times.  This is not enough to build a Wikipedia article on.  You say this article will "benefit from expansion," but you provide no evidence that this can be done.  Pan Dan 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, Alansohn, the renomination was standard procedure since the call to restore at DRV was just a slight majority. On "can't impove", the article was userfied in your userspace during the DRV, so neither of your claims are anywhere near factual, and I would recommend you re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Consider this a formal warning. ~ trialsanderrors 07:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the reasoning provided in the first AfD and Deletion Review. Eusebeus 21:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Alansohn's well-reasoned remarks. Highfructosecornsyrup 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:School. TSO1D 02:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notability is strongly demonstrated within this article and also very well referenced through multiple non-trivial sources. Strongly disagree with attempts to dismiss the notability of Blue Ribbon schools, not to mention those which offer the International Baccalaureate program.  Yamaguchi先生 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: "multiple non-trivial sources" -- Can you point to two? Pan Dan 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Yamaguchi and per WP:SCHOOLS. bbx 02:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Alansohn makes a very hard to deny argument.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I found it pretty easy to deny. See above.  Pan Dan 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yamaguchi, Alansohn, etc. --Myles Long 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and previous AfD. I fail to see the "very hard to deny" argument by Alansohn: do you mean the old argument for many (school) AfD's that the article will somehow improve in the future, although no one really says how it will improve and what sources will be used to do that? The Blue Ribbon is not giving any notability, as indicated by the lack of press coverage and in-depth articles the award has generated, and the International Baccalaureate program is even worse in that regard (the schools pay to become one: not really an award, isn't it?). This school is not notable, and those wanting to keep it have had more than enough time to demonstrate the oppposite, but have failed to do so.Fram 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject is still notable as an International Baccalaureate school, part of the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, and for being the largest and oldest non-sectarian private school in the area.  Wikipedia has no shortage of those who are in denial, but this is not a valid reason for deletion, the article clearly and concisely demonstrates notability and meets all relevant inclusion policies. Silensor 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Like User:Alansohn, you cite claims to notability. Multiple non-trivial outside sources, which are missing here, would show actual notability.  Pan Dan 13:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Fram and my response to User:Alansohn. Despite >10 days and many searches by diligent Wikipedians, there appear not to be multiple non-trivial outside sources we could use to write a good Wikipedia article about this school.  Pan Dan 13:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please this school is notable enough and meets our proposed school inclusion guidelines too Yuckfoo 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The LA Times did a write-up of the openning, plus won national awards and recognition. Notable enough. --Oakshade 01:42, 8 December 2006 (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.