Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDEA Public Schools


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

IDEA Public Schools

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I had nominated this under WP:G11 as the entire article would have to be rewritten in order to be neutral. From the first section (!) and first sentence of that section, which is not supported by its source at the time of this nomination, this article is a hot mess of promotionalism and mostly sourced to SPS. TNT. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * rewritten?? Nonsense. It's well written now.  It is also neutral: NPOV means that all alternative viewpoints are covered, and that is the case for this article. Jytdog has failed to specify any non-neutral material.  He completely missed the references to the Washington Post and the US news, which are major national reliable sources on educational standards in high schools. They emphasize the importance of the IDEA schools. Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did point it out. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * IDEA has received high powered national attention. The Wikipedia rule on notability is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This article clearly meets that, as exemplified by this powerful story by Jay Mathews in the Washington Post in April 2016
 * Even more startling is the appearance of six public charter high schools in some of the poorest parts of Texas among the top 50 schools on our list, which I have produced for The Post (and previously for Newsweek) for 18 years. Those six schools, and a seventh that ranks No. 106, are all part of the Idea Public Schools charter network. Last year they had AP test participation rates twice as high as those of affluent public schools such as McLean and Whitman high schools, or private schools such as National Cathedral and Holton-Arms....Idea network students have courses on AP skills beginning in sixth grade, and in ninth grade they take their first AP course, Human Geography. They are scheduled for 11 AP courses in all, with a goal of passing the exams in at least three of them to win an AP Scholar designation from the College Board. Most suburban high schools would reject this as too demanding, but disadvantaged Texas families see a bleak future if their children cannot break out of remedial courses. Idea teachers increase homework gradually so students get used to the load. Jay Mathews, "That’s the Idea: Some schools serving low-income students believe in a challenge" Washington POST April 17 2016 Rjensen (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you responded to the actual deletion rationale. Of course you posted this out of process before I even completed the nomination so how could you even know?  Anyway.  Who knows, maybe you will completely rewrite the article while this nomination is pending. Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The deletion rationale has vanished. Rjensen (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This article has been around for nine years over a hundred editors have contributed to it. It is sourced to far more national reliable sources than any high school article I have seen. (I compared it to all the California charter schools in Wikipedia; Only one California school can match this article and quality.) It has extensive coverage in the Washington Post, for example, and the Huffington Post. Claiming that it is "mostly sourced" to self published sources is simply false. The idea of puffery is also false. It gained mention in top national contests--eg a Race to the Top grant by the US Department of Education, one of top-three finalists for the annual Broad Prize of $250,000 for Charter Schools.   U.S. News & World Report ranked IDEA Donna as 5 in the state of Texas and #8 nationally among charter schools. The fact is it includes some of the most honored schools in the country, and is getting special attention because it serves a poor Hispanic population in rural areas. Nothing has to be rewritten. Jytdog has not raised any of his complaints on the talk page, where they belong. Were talking deletion here, and the case for it is preposterous. Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The notability is clear for this sizeable group of charter schools, and as I understand it, the nominator does not contest this.  The text is excessively boosterish at times, but is it so promotional as to be unimprovable? I don't think so; it has the same optimistic tone that many of our school articles have, and plenty of editing is in order, but not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It would need to be completely rewritten to make this anything close to neutral. That is the nomination rationale. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When I nominated this the article at that time there was a boatload of completely unsourced, promotional content (e.g the "Teachers" 'section had no sources; most of the "College Signing Day" section which had just one SPS; the System section which was unsourced but for one SPS; the Schools section was just an unsourced laundrylist;  The article had 35 sources; 7 of them were from the school and another was a job ad posted by the school; sources 18-20 were press release and puffery from Broad; source 21 is a letter to the editor by a candidate for governor (really??, this is a good source?).  And of course the multiple citings of USN&W3R (5 of them, again some of them just BS explaining how they do their rankings).  So that is 17 pretty bad/badly used refs.  Not to mention the whole structure of the article, front-ending the overpitched ratings from USN&W report.
 * Even now, as I write this the article (permalink) has 40 sources, all of those sources are still there including the crappy editorial, the laundrylist of schools is still there, the unsourced content about teachers and the System and the almost completely unsourced promotional "College Signing Day" hype is still there.
 * The very first source was a press release, added even while the AfD focused on promotionalism is pending.
 * Others have noted the crappy sources used in this article.
 * There are good refs. One good make a GA about this school.  It needs TNT. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog Is greatly exaggerating the problems. For example, press release and puffery from Broad;. Broad Is an independent foundation that gives a major prize to the best charter schools in the country ($250,000) after careful evaluation. IDEA came in number three in its evaluation, which BROAD announced. That is a major national achievement that certainly deserves mention. Jytog misunderstands the political dimension-- the candidate for governor in 2014 visited IDEA, praised as to the sky, and declared that it ought the, a model for Texas.  That candidate Greg Abbott won & is now the governor of Texas; Education was (and is) one of his major issues. That makes the IDEA model an issue in Texas politics--and it is sourced with a newspaper story. So yes that is an important fact. Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality criteria is met
The article meets the NPOV criteria for neutrality--that is, all serious alternative views ARE included. Indeed, I compared it with all the charter school articles for California & there is rather more criticism here than 9/10 of the Calif school articles. Rjensen (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Not to mention, the grammar and editing is poorly made due to @Jytdog's edits. Much needed information to explain certain awards and other topics have been deleted, leaving readers with vague info. De88 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I did the total rewrite myself - dif. No need for this AfD so am withdrawing it. Jytdog (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2016 (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.