Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P.S. 158


 * 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 per improvements. Glass  Cobra  15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. 158

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

Delete as an unnotable elementary school. Tavix (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, completely unsourced. --Banime (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not true any more. --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as unsourced and little content. It's probably just as well that it has no sources, or there would be somebody who would urge a keep because "It's been mentioned in The New York Times so it has to be notable!"  No reason, however, that this can't be mentioned in an article about the Region 9 schools. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As proven below, it does have in depth sources beyond "mentioned." --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand with information from the following NYT articles:, and, especially  which shows the notability -- an long 2008 NYT article devoted primarily to the school, and , a NYT article specifically on the history of the school. And from another source, .  As for mentions, there's a few hundred in G News, but I didn' t include these.  Few elementary schools could match this now--the prominence is not accidental--consider the school location. However, as more newspaper backfiles become easily available, I think we will be able to find something close to this for a few hundred at least--very few major newspaper backfiles are as easily available as the NY Times. DGG (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn; sources above mostly use it as an example (e.g., "hundreds of city schools like P.S. 158") or a trivia story (the archivist). JJL (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The coverage is in-depth. That it's covered as an "example" is all the more indication of its notability. The New York Times describes the attributes of this "example" in detail. --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand per the in-depth New York Times articles on this topic found by DGG above, one of which written by noted journalist Jacques Steinberg. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete lacks any sources and notability, also in regards to the above comments just because it is mentioned in the New York Times does not make it notable. If that were the case then thousands of people listed in the obituaries every year would be notable and deserve their own wikipedia articles, why because they are in the New York Times.--User:Twkratte 06:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lacks any sources? That's completely contradictory of reality.  The scope of the NYT coverage is far beyond "mentioned" and is in great detail. --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete What is the actual notability being claimed here? It has produced "some of the highest" test scores in a particular city, it is "considered one of the best" schools in that particular city, and it's one of a number of schools taking part in a pilot scheme for standardised education.  Of the two refs, the Steinberg NYT article is a piece about the pilot scheme which just happens to use this participating school as an example - it doesn't say the school is special or different from the others piloting the scheme -  and the Siegal article is a local-interest story about some old written records turning up.  No assertion or sourced evidence for the school's notability per se.  Ka renjc 12:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Karenjc. It looks like there's not much material to expand the article, so it seems like this will be another stub forever claiming "this school exists". VG &#x260E; 01:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment how about that article devoted specifically to the history of the school? How many elementary schools have something like that? And I want to mention that I have over the last two years been among those trying to keep most articles about   elementary schools merged or deleted. This is not one of the areas where I'm an inclusionist--far from it. This one is an exception--at least it is till the world recognizes the rest of them as being worth this kind of detailed coverage and major newspapers and magazines give it.  DGG (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this in what I hope will be considered neutral terms at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, to get some wider discussion,, given that most people are rather bored with school afds. DGG (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I went back to look at the refs cited in the article again in the light of DGG's comment above, assuming I'd missed something, but I haven't.   The Siegal piece here is a few paragraphs - headed  "Neighborhood Report: Upper East Side" - (my italics) about some old journals turning up that will give the school's Parents Association some material to help celebrate its centennial.  It's not "an article devoted specifically to the history of the school", it's a couple of nice local interest paragraphs about a local school, and I honestly can't see how it can be said to be nontrivial, even if the local paper it's printed in happens to be the New York Times.  Ka renjc 08:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Trivial" as defined by WP:NOTABILITY refers to "directory listings" or "passing mentions." Being the in-depth subject of two New York Times articles is far beyond a directory listing or passing mention.  There has never been a "Local sources don't count" clause in any Wikipedia standard or guideline.--Oakshade (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The actual wording I'm working from is: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. I really do respect the basis of your argument, and I have no personal feelings about the school and this AFD one way or the other, but I just don't see how the two sources together amount to substantial coverage of the school in its own right, or how the Siegal piece can be described as substantial or nonlocal. But I'll shut up now and let others decide :)  Ka renjc 09:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment what is it about this school that is alleged to be noteworthy? The article says that it has "some of the highest test scores" and is "considered one of the best schools" and was "one of the first schools in the city to adopt very stringent teaching requirements" and I don't see how any of those accomplishments are especially significant. JJL (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable and verifiable sources provided are unquestionably about the school, satisfying the Notability standard. This is a notable exception from the vast majority of elementary schools that would be unable to establish their notability using strong quality sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Every elementary school has been written about in a reliable and verifiable source, so there is no exception here. Mandsford (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not every elementary school has been the in-depth subject of major reliable sources like the New York Times as this one has.  I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2006 and keep a very close eye on places AfDs and I've seen only a few elementary schools that have survived AfDs because most don't pass the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY as this one has.--Oakshade (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As with the Associated Press, the New York Times has a wire service and NYT stories are frequently reprinted elsewhere in the nation and the world. If P.S. 158 has been a news item in another paper besides the Times, that would be evidence of notability.  Perhaps a better analogy would be the NYT's obituaries page.  Having one's obituary there can be a sign of notability, as the 2000 book Fame At Last demonstrated; or it can be a sign that one was a resident of Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, etc. and that funeral services are at 1:00 this afternoon.  Mandsford (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no "Sources must have been re-printed elsewhere" clause or anything like it in WP:NOTABILITY. If you'd like to introduce such a clause, you are welcome to suggest that on WP:N's talk page.  The obituary argument is a red herring one as this is not an obituary, nor is it one that anyone can submit to a newspaper to be published in the "death notices" section.  These are in-depth articles by a very reliable source written by reporter (one a very noted one) that have nothing to do with public submissions. --Oakshade (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to introduce a clause. I think it's fair to say that if this were Taylor Elementary School in Seymour, Indiana, and the claim to notability for Taylor Elementary was an article in the Seymour News entitled "New Standards Finding Way Into Schools" or "Journals Solve A School Mystery", most people would not consider that school to be worthy of its own Wikipedia page.  But what would be the difference between the two schools?  This discussion is likely to end in a keep or a no consensus, but honestly, P.S. 158 is no more special than any other elementary school.  Mandsford (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability has nothing to do with being "more special" than anything else, nor does it have anything to do with "fame," "importance" or "popularity". I think that it's fair to say that if the Seymour News is a reliable and verifiable source independent of the school, and if it has included significant coverage in the form of relevant articles that are about Taylor Elementary School, then a prima facie case would be met that the Notability standard has been satisfied. That is the exact definition of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per the New York Times references found by DGG and per the notable alumni section added by Jh12. I also found this mention in a book, which shows that the school has taught deaf children. And I also found another mention in another book which shows that the elementary school has been open sinc 1898. The media coverage in the NYT articles, the notable alumni, and the several literary appearances clearly establish this school's notability. Few elementary schools have that many reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per DGG and sources; elementary schools are not known for their publicists. --  Banj e  b oi    07:24, 23 September 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.