Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Rothschild


 * 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 delete per WP:BIO, WP:V/WP:RS, and WP:SPAM (the version that was nominated). The one reference in the stubified version is not about the subject of the article, which does not help its case. Article is being protected from re-creation until it can be shown that a neutral, non-self-promotional article can be written on this figure. --Core des at 07:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mimi Rothschild
Spam Dcobranchi 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete and marked as such. Wildthing61476 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dcobranchi and/or others using that name have a several year history of spamming Ms. Rothschild (the subject of this article). She has been the recipient of repeated unwelcome contacts from individual(s) using "dcobranchi" and similar variations of this 'name'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmandel (talk • contribs) — Hmandel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Somebody at an IP address registered to Learning By Grace, a company owned by Mimi Rothchild, originated the original wiki entry that was deleted as advertising. This one was edited to reflect Mimi's well documented history with charter schools in Pennsylvania. Mimi is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry and hopefully she has learned from this that Wikipedia is not a venue for self promotion. I support the nomination for deletion.--IAATM 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * At least one article on Ms. Rothchild has already been deleted. Both that one and this new one were originally written in the style of an advertisement, and thus were inappropriate.  This one has been edited by several people to both tone down the advertising and to include reference to Ms. Rothschild's involvement with the controversial Einstein charter school, an important part of Ms. Rothschild's history in the cyber-education field.  The information about Einstein was verifible and cited credible references.  If there is to be an article on Ms. Rothchild (and I can see the argument either way), it must be written in a neutral point of view, the information must be verifiable, and it must not be a veiled advertisement for Ms. Rothchild's current projects. People who wish to make changes to this article are encouraged to use the talk page for the article to work out their differences. Stargirl7 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Mandel's (Ms. Rothschild's husband) claims above are fabrications, and even were they true, are irrelevant to the current discussion.


 * Sorry that was me. I forgot to sign in. --Dcobranchi 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dcobranchi Stargirl7 IAATM -- Ageo020 ( Talk  •  Contribs ) 00:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable. But  I have reason to believe this is some kind of nonsensical game by the nominator and the above commentors. All of the above who have red links on them have at some time contributed to this article . Why did they not delete it at that time instead they reverted vandalism and expanded it as well. Also the above red link users have around 50-100% of their contribs to this particular article or related stuff. Check out all of their individual contribs.

"Mimi Rothschild is a child’s rights advocate" - not verified or supported.
 * Unfortunately, if you remove all of the advertising from the current version, there's not much left:

"has authored a total of seven books on children’s education including Cyberspace for Kids" - I'll accept this.

"is the founder of several, distinguished online homeschooling academies" - distingushed is clearly advertising, the rest is OK.

"all created to assist homeschooling families with their every educational need" - advertising.

"Mimi Rothschild has helped change the face of education" - unsupported opinion. "using her own homeschooling experiences with her eight children; both Mimi Rothschild and her husband have reshaped the homeschooling experience for families all over the world" - again, advertising and unsupported.

"The Jubilee Academy, The Grace Academy, and The MorningStar Academy are all online homeschooling academies" - this is fine.

"that offer homeschooling parents innovative tools to educate their children in the home environment." - as do any other online schools; this description of an online school is better put on a page about online schools.

"The homeschooling academies that are overseen by Rothschild offer courses that are rooted in the Christian faith and the teachings of Christ." - advertising, though it could be modified to work.

"With a firm focus on the child’s individual development, courses are structured to address the unique needs of every child. Each course provides the child with the opportunity to improve their socialization skills, better their ethics, and to openly learn about the world in a real world setting." - advertising, plus veering away from being about Ms Rothschild herself.

"The MorningStar Academy offers 140 courses and courses focus on subjects such as English, Mathematics, Science, Art, Music, Technology, Health, History, Global Languages, Bible Studies, and more. Each course is created to meet the needs of the child that has attained a particular grade level of proficiency, and all of the homeschooling courses offered at The MorningStar Academy are structured to meet the needs of homeschoolers at particular grade levels, from elementary to high school levels." - again, this is more about the school itself rather than Ms. Rothchild, and generally is typical of all such schools.

"Included with the course enrollment, homeschooling families are offered an array of educational services including a 180-week lesson plan, educational transcripts, regular progress reports, access to a video library, and academic counselors are readily available to assist homeschooling parents with questions and concerns. The Grace Academy follows suit and offers courses for children that are kindergarten level to high school level. Meanwhile, the Jubilee Academy online differs from the Morningstar Academy only in the fact that it offers homeschooling parents the opportunity to start their homeschoolers early with a pre-school program. Further, each of the academies offers CD Rom based lessons for homeschoolers, a course catalog for children of every age, interactive Internet activities, and avenues of digital and paperless learning." - this is pure advertising, and again is about the schools rather than Ms. Rothschild.

Taking out the advertising, you are left with: "Mimi Rothschild has authored a total of seven books on children’s education including Cyberspace for Kids and is the founder of several online homeschooling academies. The Jubilee Academy, The Grace Academy, and The MorningStar Academy are all online homeschooling academies." (This is of course leaving aside the question of whether Ms. Rothschild's involvement with Einstein should be included.) I believe this article should be either deleted as advertising, or modified to include only verifiable information about Ms. Rothschild. (Note that this article was "speedy-deleted" once as advertising, but was re-posted.)


 * Yes, it was speedy deleted the first time, and then Mimi (or her representative) decided to repost the advertisement. Since it was apparent at that point that we were playing whack-a-mole, several people decided to edit the article instead so that it was an accurate representation on Mimi Rothschild's contribution to cyber-schooling. You'll note that the article Mimi (or her representatives) object to is written in a neutral POV, and includes citations to other reputable sources for all included issues. The only version that has any business being on the wiki is the latest stargirl7 version. I and others are willing to agree to a delete just to make Mimi go away. However, what we won't stand for is her willful misrepresentation of her own history, thereby potentially misleading unknowing people that are researching her current cyber school operations. Anybody thinking about spending $2000 a year with her business has a right to know all the facts, not just the facts Mimi wants to advance.--71.161.45.242 00:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is me above - thought I was signed in. --IAATM 00:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * At a minimum Ms. Rothschild satisfies the "Google Test" - 79,000 results, first 10 results are all for the person in question, and, excluding the Answers.Com mirror of Wikipedia, all are different domains and different content. On the other hand, all that the most recent stargirl17 edit really tells you is what Rothschild's most basic and verifiable claims are, plus stuff about the Einstein controversy -- all of which can also be learned from scanning the first 10 entries on Google; the top result is anti-Rothschild, and the next down (after Wikipedia) is Rothschild's own site.  I'm very slightly in favor of keeping the article, but given the amount of reverting going on, I'm not sure whether any kind of a stable page can be achieved -- and while she might be important enough for a short article, she's not important enough for everyone to keep worrying about it. Lloannna 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Lloannna (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * If you put the name in quotes it is only 866 Google refs. More than a few of those hits are press releases for her academies.--Dcobranchi 14:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, to sum up the comments so far, I don't see anyone arguing that the article should definately be kept. It's pretty much all "delete"s or weak "keep"s, so current consensus seems to be "delete".  Anyone want to chime in and make a stronger case for keeping this one?  Stargirl7 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete After reading the various versions, it doesn't appear that there IS any way to make a strong argument for keeping this. Given the history of prior deletion, I don't see how this isn't just another attempt at self-promotion, albeit worded slightly differently. OddAud 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This appears to be advertising. I would like to see it deleted but if it is kept, then I think all of the facts should be allowed to be included even if it is negative information. Jumpinginpuddles 15:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jumpinginpuddles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Delete and protect. Self promotion spamming, likely to be repeated if deleted without salting. -Amatulic 23:16, 19 October 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.