Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella K Abraham High School for Girls


 * 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 of the debate was keep Ifnord 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stella K Abraham High School for Girls
No evidence that this is a renowned educational institute. External links only lead to own page and basic stats. Google: 170 unique hits. Needs evidence of academic merit, notable alumni etc. to become encyclopedic. Otherwise Delete. Deiz 00:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, let's try to avoid bias against less academically meritorious schools. This is an important part of Jewish education in Nassau County and not really a suitable merge candidate since it's independent and not a substub. Kappa 00:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PS I should mention I created this article. Kappa 00:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Simple matter of notability and academic merit is crucial in this case... By all means expand the article if it meets the criteria, if it doesn't then as an experienced Wiki user you know the deal... --Deiz 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if expanded to meet WP:SCH proposal. Otherwise merge it.Gateman1997 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excellent start to the article by Kappa who deserves our thanks and praise. -- JJay 01:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You give Kappa all the thanks and praise you like.. rework has potential but still needs more to clear the bar of notability. An alumni section featuring people with their own legit bio pages on the site would help... also echo what Rebel says below. --Deiz 02:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Your complaints go well beyond the school guidelines here. And if you had any legitimate concerns, you should have posted them first to the article talk page. Starting with an AfD nom is unnecessarily confrontational. -- JJay 02:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Suddenly we have an article! Add a link that verifies the controversy thing and we're getting somewhere. A few more nuggets of info and it might even resemble an encyclopedia entry. Better wikipedia articles through confrontation? You bet... --Deiz 03:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * **I don't really see an AfD from a user who, looking at his contributions, obviously has not been through the rounds in the overall school AfD controversy as "confrontational." Please WP:Assume Good Faith. I'd also encourage Deiz not to use what I'll assuming is a tongue-in-cheek way of speaking here, as, in my experience, it hasn't played very well in this highly contested and touchy subject. Let's all keep it calm. -Rebelguys2 03:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I consider all AfDs to be confrontational, barring the most egregious examples, if other avenues (i.e. templates and talk page) have not been tried first. For topics that are in any way valid, AfD should be a last resort. -- JJay 03:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was clarifying my post when you made your last edit, and don't want to replace it now that you've responded...I've went ahead and struck it. I don't really see an AfD from a user who, looking at his contributions, obviously has not been through the rounds in the overall school AfD controversy, as "confrontational." Please WP:Assume Good Faith. Don't take your disagreements with his vote as grounds for accusing his opinions of being ilegitimate ("And if you had any legitimate concerns..."); there has certainly been much past debate, but please do not bite the newcomers. I'd also encourage Deiz not to use here what I'm assuming to be a tongue-in-cheek way of speaking, though this encouragement is hardly policy. In my experience, however, sarcasm does not play well online, and is certainly going to raise eyebrows in this highly contested and touchy subject. Let's all keep it calm. -Rebelguys2 03:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to further clarify, the last thing I ever want to do is bite newcomers and I have no idea if that is applicable to this nom. I was responding to a direct comment addressed to me. However, while the nomination would seem to be perfectly legimate based on the voting, I continue to feel that AfD (not just schools but any topic) is rarely the best approach. -- JJay 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the main issue still falls back to, *cringe*, the "bar of notability," of which there's no definitive consensus. "And if you had any legitimate concerns" (i.e., his concerns of notability) is what came off as hostile to me, though I know you're civil and a good faith user. Don't worry about it. -Rebelguys2 04:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * An attitude like "Better wikipedia articles through confrontation?" is why I do my very best to avoid making improvements to articles as a response to AFDs. Deliberately using a confrontationalal method to force other wikipedians to do your bidding is not a way to build a healthy community. Kappa 09:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. If, in all likelihood, kept, it's likely fine as it is; do not expand with transient and non-notable information for the sake of expansion. -Rebelguys2 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN per Rebelguys2. &mdash; Scm83x talk [[Image:Hookem_hand.gif|18px]] 01:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. *drew 01:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry Kappa, this is no different from the Catholic high school I voted to zap the other day. Ruby 02:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I always vote to keep well-written school articles, in hopes that their students will be more motivated to contribute. --James S. 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, blatantly passes WP:SCH. And high schools are inherently notable, anyway, unless the rules have been changed again. - Randwicked Alex B 03:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of verifiable information. --Allen 05:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Nice article. Merchbow 05:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. High schools are always notable, and this one is more interesting than most. Grandmasterka 06:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clear past precedent on high schools, and this is a pretty good article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and keep as compromise. Marskell 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all high schools WP:SCH. Jcuk 11:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:SCH and, aside, seems notable as a high school -- Samir |Talk  ∙  Contribs | 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:SCH and well beyond. --Rob 12:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable and verified; expansion is needed, not deletion. Turnstep 15:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SCH. --Aaron 15:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SCH and the arguments above. Snurks T C 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, merge, redirect, delete, and move per Marskell, but I believe in pluralism rather than duality. :) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To Kappa, JJay & Rebel, much love... to all the others who have voted, the page looked a damn sight different when I made the nomination and was struggling to pass the "3 original sentences" test on WP:SCH. Look at it now... ++Deiz 02:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey much love to you too. Does that mean you are changing your vote to keep now? -- JJay 02:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for you JJay (and all those Jewish chicks who need their education in Nassau county) my vote is now Keep ++Deiz 15:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. the school has been involved in some controversies, and a few victories as well.Blnguyen 07:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this is perfectly fine, and as more students hear about it, they will continue to add to it Amazins490 17:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Schools/Arguments. Silensor 06:20, 31 January 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.