Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schechter Day School Network


 * 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   speedy keep. ⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  21:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Schechter Day School Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced shamelessly smarmy advertisement for group of elementary schools, complete with unsourced assertions that various somewhat notable living persons are alumni. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The organization is clearly notable, as the largest network of Conservative Jewish schools in North America. The article won;t qualify for FA soon, but as it currently exists undoubtedly meets any standard of notability. The smarmy nomination appears to have been written by an editor who appears to have not performed even the most basic research of prospective notability or to have made any effort to address the issues, and sadly it's someone who should have known better. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't slag off on the nominator, please assume good faith. Nor is the nominator in any way obligated to "address" any deficiencies of the article. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming that "slagging off" is intended negatively, I didn't slag anywhere near enough. WP:BEFORE could not be any clearer in under the heading "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" that "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating.... If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern." We need to start slagging left and right at lazy editors who are slacking off at their obligations as prospective nominators are required to go slogging through a search to fins prospective sources to support notability. This nomination fails the most basic standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Carrite. Are you of the view that a wp:before search is required, before an AfD nomination?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can appreciate that the content of this article as nominated had a promotional tone (as do many of our school-related articles), but that is a reason to fix the article, not delete it. This organization has been a major institution of Conservative Judaism since the 1950s, and more recently its uncertain future (as a number of Schechter-affilated schools have chosen to disaffiliate) has drawn considerable attention.  Examples:
 * "Conservative day schools debate admitting kids of non-Jewish moms"
 * "Hebrew Academy drops its affiliation with Conservative day school body"
 * "Will Schechter Schools Leave Conservatives?"
 * "‘The Perfect Storm’ for Day Schools"
 * "Conference confronts ‘new reality’ for day schools"
 * "Conservative school movement names board chief"
 * "Conservative movement tipping toward openness to children of intermarried"
 * Here's an chapter about the organization's history and prospects in The Praeger Handbook of Faith-Based Schools in the United States, K-12 (ABC-CLIO, 2012) .   More prospective sources at GBooks and GScholar   By the way, not that it necessarily belongs in this article, but Natalie Portman  and Mike Gordon  really did attend Schechter Schools.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly qualifies for GNG, per the RS coverage found doing a web search.  (BTW .. has wp:BEFORE died?; I missed the obit).  Needs cleanup, to be sure, but AfD is not for cleanup.  This can even be snow kept after the next two or three keeps, if no new editors disagree; its that clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly is a notable group of institutions.  Did not strike me as a partial article.  Just because there is a lack of sources does not mean they should be deleted.  --Ben Knapp (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N. Current sources already prove notability, and there are many more. Yoninah (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per longstanding consensus that High Schools of verified existence are presumed notable: "By 1968, a high school in Brooklyn, New York was opened. Today there are approximately 50 Solomon Schechter Day Schools, including several high schools. " Carrite (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is actually more akin to a school district that includes high schools, incidentally — also inherently notable in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I think an organisation of 50+ schools is pretty clearly notable, and the sources are there. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - blatantly notable as per sources. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow makes sense (see my comment above).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability has been proven and consensus is already clear at this point. Ducknish (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. It's obvious that this subject is both WP:N and WP:V. The nominator has been too rash as can be seen in his disrespectful language that this is a "...shamelessly smarmy advertisement for group [sic] of elementary schools..." So, while the article is not perfect and could use further WP:Wikification, there is no need to insult this important network of Jewish day schools and wipe it off the map since it is an encyclopedic topic relating to Jewish education. An easier first step would have been to start up some talk and solicit some views from WP:EXPERT editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM. At any rate, at times like this, always think of the advice offered at WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and at WP:CHANCE. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2013 (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.