Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segregation academies


 * 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. I'm closing this early per the snowball clause; I don't see any likelihood of an outcome other than keep based on the discussion so far. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Segregation academies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NEO Verdad (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a shockingly misguided nomination. For more insight into the nominator's mindset, who seems to think that this term was invented by Wikipedia (!?), see this comment on the article's talk page.  Then see the extensive discussion and coverage of this topic by name without scare quotes in reliable sources dating back forty years and more:, , , , and on and on and on.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This article does not fall under WP:DICDEF. This article doesn't provide a simple dictionary definition; it quite obviously discusses the subject's history extensively and provides a wealth of reliable sources on the details of the topic. Furthermore, the term is most certainly not a neologism as per the sources linked by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah above. -- Kinu  t/c 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. For one thing, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NEO" is a sentence fragment (or two), not a well-supported argument for deletion; for another, this article is no more a dictionary definition than is the article on, say, "Jim Crow laws". 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Segregation academies were a well-documented response to desegregation.  Hundreds of other articles link to the article.  The article is important and should remain in Wikipedia.  Magnolia677 (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete . In its current form, the article violates WP:NEO.  I apologize for the previous sentence fragment.  I find the continued use of scare_quotes and terminology like, "so-called" and "dubbed" indicative that the term is a neologism.  Regardless of the date it was first used... (And I stand corrected.  My fears are assuaged . The term did not originate on Wikipedia.  Thank you, alf laylah wa laylah)... sources using the term uniformly include scare quotes, etc.   I disagree with alf laylah wa laylah's assertion that the sources do not.  And I encourage participants in this discussion to view the cited sources.  I don't mind the article not being deleted.  But, It seems to me it needs serious overhaul.  For example, the Allen v Wright case, which forms a large portion of the article, makes no mention of the term.  And so on, and so forth.Verdad (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- do ncr  am  00:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Important topic, clear notability. (If the decision is to Keep, I would recommend renaming the article in the singular, as per WP:TITLE, to Segregation academy.) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not sure why it was nominated. Obvious keep. Bali88 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2014 (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.