Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey School Report Card


 * 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 (non-admin closure), Closed per the withdrawal of the nomination by Husond, and the developing consensus that the major expansion of the article had rendered the article encyclopedic. S. Dean Jameson 04:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey School Report Card

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This has been around since 2006 (!) despite being blatantly unencyclopedic. I mean, not unless someone has been creating notability criteria for those paper stacks in your office that grow magically with reports like this. Hús ö  nd  18:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw I give up, thanks to Vickser's major expansion. Hús  ö  nd  13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not really notable. Just seems to be the title of a report given every year. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. My school had report cards too, as I'm sure all of them do.  Allowing this will allow for all kinds of similar information about every school district in the world, which is a door I, for one, don't want to open.  Addionne (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about the report card for a _student_. This is the report card for the _school_ issued by the NJDOE.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops - my mistake. Merge and Redirect then.  Addionne (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll strikethrough your previous vote for clarity when the votes are counted.  Cheers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an article that is referenced by the hundreds of school district articles across the state of New Jersey, the first step towards the eventual creation of such articles for every school district in the world. Deletion policy requires consideration of expansion or alternatives to deletion, a course of action that seems to have been ignored here. Any explanation for why a merge to New Jersey Department of Education could not -- and should not -- have been presented as an alternative to deletion? Alansohn (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. How are the report cards in New Jersey different from those anywhere else? (that sounds waxxy, doesn't it?). User:Alansohn says "This is an article that is referenced by the hundreds of school district articles across the state of New Jersey". Sorry, but Wikipedia is not anyone's personal webspace.  Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article in question provides details about a document used as the primary means for the public to evaluate each of the school districts in the state. How does that make it any individual's webspace in violation of WP:NOT? Alansohn (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about the report card for a _student_. This is the report card for the _school_ issued by the NJDOE.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect with New Jersey Department of Education Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 20:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per Sedd&sigma;n. This is important information. Important to the New Jersey Department of Education. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! &spades; / &diams; 23:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect - to New Jersey Department of Education. This should prevent anyone trying to recreate it LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect - This is useful information, but should not have it's on page. Redirect. America69 (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to New Jersey Department of Education. Not notable on its own, but a plausible search term and a significant part of the department's activity. --Dhartung | Talk 01:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is used to rate the performance of schools in New Jersey. It is notable as a government product and relevant background to the many articles on schools and school districts in New Jersey.  This article is linked to by well over 1450 other articles!   There are ~81,000 google hits for "new jersey" "school report card".  There are 130 newspaper articles in the Google News archive matching the same search term .  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding by many of the commenters above. This is not about a report card for _Students_.  This is about a report card for the _school_ issued by the NJDOE. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm aware of the topic of the article. Ghit count in the particular situation is misleading. "New Jersey" "School report card" is a broad search term. "New Jersey school report card" is a bit more specific, and turns up 41K Ghits and 23 G-Nhits. Most of these are either Dependant(government-related/hosted) or unreliable(blogs, forums). The cases of independent, reliable sources (that are free to unregistered users) only mention it in passing. Instead, I believe the information relevant to the NJDoE should be added to that article, then a School Report Card article be created in similar fashion to this article: Gun laws in the United States (by state). Also, whatever we do with this article, we should do with Illinois School Report Card (wrether it be merge, delete, or keep(in which case it'd need to be expanded)). ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! &spades; / &diams; 00:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no requirement for sources to be free to unregistered users, or even available online, for them to be considered reliable.Jim Miller (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The more limited query you provided missed articles such as, a New York Times article in which the official title is not used. The NYT article is a thorough discussion of that year's report card issuance.  Also, Jim has a valid point.  Per WP:V and WP:RS, there is no requirement that reliable, verifiable sources be available for free or even online at all.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know. I'm just not willing to pay to read what the news article says. Several sources have been listed, so, assuming they're factual, notability isn't as much of an issue with me. Still, I'm sticking with my M & R view, based on conventions. What I mean is this: we don't have separate articles for gun laws. In my mind, the reason for that is simple; this type of information is more useful when it can be compared to the same info from other states. It also presents the information in a more organized form:

STATE REPORT CARD This is what a State School Report Card(SRC) is. This is what it does. These are the pros and cons of a state report card. This article organizes them by state:

Alabama

This is what makes Alabama's SRP different from other states'.

[Table of the Alabama's grades]

Alaska

Maybe Alaska doesn't have a SRC?

Arkansas

This is what makes Arkansas' SRC different.

[Table of grades]

etc...

etc...


 * I'm not suggesting we delete this information as useless garbage. I'm pointing out the best way to present the information in regards to the reader. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! &spades; / &diams; 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect per above. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The New Jersey School Report card is a regular review of the progess and performance of individual schools and districts throughout the state performed and issued by the state Department of Education. It is one of the most referenced works of the state government by reliable sources. As a primary reference used by reliable sources, it's mentions are not trivial, and its WP:NOTE notability is well established. Te article needs some serious work, especially in referencing, but that is not a reason for deletion. Jim Miller (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And how does that address the non-notability issue for this thing? Hús  ö  nd  15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy requires consideration of expansion or alternatives to deletion, including the consideration of merging into an existing article. I see equal justification for keeping the article, and I'm not alone, but is there any response to the alternative of a merge rather than delete? Alansohn (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your complaint. Everybody has explored alternatives to deletion, but some do not find anything in this article that is worth saving, thus not calling for a merger. What's your point? Hús  ö  nd  16:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are just as many who prefer keeping the material in this article, either on its own or merged elsewhere. Would you have deleted this information if it were in the article for the New Jersey Department of Education or is your preference for deletion based on its placement in a separate article? Would you object to a merge? Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No I wouldn't object. I don't think that the content of this article is particularly useful for an encyclopedia, but I guess it wouldn't harm somewhere else. I recommend deletion, but a merger would not represent a problem. Hús  ö  nd  17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'm still pushing for keep, but merge/redirect would retain the information. Alansohn (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding notability, consider these publications which discuss or cite the NJSRC:
 * Disertation: Ronald Renaldi, "The New Jersey School Report Card: A case study of the initiation of a state-level accountability system for local public schools."; Order Number 9236892
 * Book: Priceton University Press: "Choosing Schools: Consumer Choice and the Quality of American Schools" p.70; ISBN 0691092834
 * Federal government report: National Education Goals Panel, "Strategies for Meeting High Standards: Quality Management and the Baldrige Criteria in Education" pp.34, 104; ISBN 142896536X
 * Book: Susan Laird Mody, "Cultural Identity in Kindergarten: A Study Of Asian Indian Children in New Jersey" pp. 50, 85-86; ISBN 0415972086
 * Book: Yaro and Hiss, "A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area", pp. 42, 196; ISBN 1559634928
 * I think it is pretty clear that notability is demonstrated. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed. Book-length treatment is usually the gold standard for reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see if I get this straight. This article has been around for years, and now it suddenly becomes referenced by sources that cannot be verified online and which still do not reveal why is this subject notable for inclusion? Who's been reading those references? Shouldn't references be used to compile an article in the first place, not the other way around? Or did these sources just decide to drop by for coffee after all these years? Ludicrous. Hús  ö  nd  20:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually these sources were found via Google Books. Please AGF and don't jump to conclusions. I haven't been involved in editing this article yet.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I am trying to make the case for inclusion and expansion. Yes, the article needs work, but that isn't a reason to delete it, it is a reason to expand and work on it.  I don't see how this is ludicrous. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with WP:AGF, this has to do with actual verifiability of sources and, still, notability (needless to say that not everything that is verifiable on this planet is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia). And it is ludicrous because any junk could be kept on Wikipedia if we were to just dig up some sources or mentions somewhere about it, but still fail to address crucial issues such as notability for inclusion. Those efforts may still have the best intentions, I'm not contesting that, but I think that in the end they bring more damage than benefit. Hús  ö  nd  21:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am missing something. I'm showing references in an attempt to meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline that says, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.  I don't see how publications like a NYT article and a disertation fail to meet this guideline.  Can you please better explain what you are looking for in regard to notability?  Thank you. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, but this is a hot-potato-throwing game. How do you demonstrate that there has been "significant coverage"? And how do you demonstrate that what was written in the article for two years is any related to those sources and not just original research? Hús  ö  nd  23:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Vickser has done a tremendous job with the rewrite, bringing in some good sources that would qualify as "significant coverage". Associated Press, New York Times, Education Week, The Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today.  Would you not agree that "blatantly unencyclopedic" as in the nomination is not correct? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see you have withdrawn your nomination. Thank you. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note At 19:46 (UTC), 10 July 2008, this article was flagged for rescue, in order to draw users from the Article Rescue Squadron . Hús  ö  nd  20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I fail to see why this is at all relevant to the AfD discussion, as that is exactly what the Article Rescue Squadron is designed to do - try to bring AfD nominated articles up to standard during their AfD discussions. As to your above comment, I very often add sources to articles after they appear here. While I believe that this article was proposed in good faith due to lack of sources, it is not unheard of for some anxious editors to propose articles for deletion just to try to get other people to do the necessary cleanup. In the interest of full disclosure, I am the editor that added the references found by User:ChrisRuvolo, because they are appropriate. Jim Miller (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep Demonstrates notability; and per Chrisruvolo and Alansohn above. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the interested, New Jersey's school report card system was apparently one of the topics of discussion of the national governor's association meeting in 1996, and the NGA published a pamplet about it. I got the article off LexisNexis, and a pay version is here, but I don't think there's a free copy.  I've also added some quotes and discussion from a 1996 philadelphia enquirer feature piece (again found on LN) that was published about it. Vickser (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've completely rewritten the page, including a good number of WP:RS (including NYTimes ones which are online and free) and would encourage everyone to take another look. I found plenty of substantive articles about the subject.  It turns out New Jersey's School Report card was the first program of its kind in the nation, which is some extra notability.  After all the research, I'm going to go ahead and throw a vote out for Keep.  This program was revolutionary, continues to this day, and has plenty of coverage. Vickser (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This represents a complete and total rewrite of the article and remarkable evidence of what can be done to rescue articles, providing ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Kudos to Vickser for your efforts! Alansohn (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tremendous work, thank you. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job on the re-write, even if I don't agree on the format. Do you think it's been expanded five-fold? Might be a good nominee for DYK. Anyway, since the nom has withdrawn, someone might as well close this AfD. I don't think it's at all a good candidate for deletion. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! &spades; / &diams; 00:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea. It's been expanded fivefold on the 11th.  The last version of the body of the text from the 10th had 144 words, current version has 966. I don't think it's okay to nominate things for DYK while there's still an ongoing afd, so I'll see if an uninvolved admin thinks this would be appropriate for an early close since the nominator withdrew his request.  And if you have any format objections, please go ahead and fix! Vickser (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2008 (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.