Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crefeld School


 * 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.  Citi Cat   ♫ 01:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The Crefeld School

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Complete absence of encyclopedic content. POV-written. No assertion of notability whatsoever. Hús ö  nd  00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   -- Bduke 00:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment-it's a high school, so will probably be saved in the end. As it is written, it is flaming crap. Chris 02:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I hope I have improved it a little. It appears to be notable. -- DS1953 talk 04:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't appear to be notable in any way whatsoever, aside from having a third floor which is restricted for students. &spades;P M C&spades; 04:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment normally on a public school with only primary sources we would merge it to the locality. Since this is s private school in a major city, there is no obvious place to merge it. Dhaluza 10:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: let's see the non-trivial independent references. I'm going away next week, so please discount my !vote if some are found. David Mestel(Talk) 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I knew nothing about this school, but in a quick skim of their website I found a news story about a notable young alumnus: M. K. Asante, Jr., who describes in the news article how the school changed his life. I believe that qualifies as a non-trivial independent reference to support notability.--orlady 18:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A single article in a local newspaper about an alumnus doth not notability establish. David Mestel(Talk) 19:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this article and this one  look very much like nontrivial external references, which would make 3. Kappa 01:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content are considered sources to be avoided as per WP:EL.-- Hús  ö  nd  01:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So don't link to them. Kappa 01:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, please refrain from using them on AfD debates. They are as much sources here as they are on the articles where naturally they are not liked therefrom.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources are not the same as external links. Kappa 04:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But bear in mind that these are both from twenty-five years ago... David Mestel(Talk) 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources free or paid are sources, and to the extent that a commercial source is the best one, it not only can but should be used. The refs above are from the Philadelphia Inquirer, the major Phila. newspaper, which is a source, not an external link, and are absolutely acceptable. There is a particular problem about Philadelphia local sourcing, because the Inquirer is about the most restrictive of all major city publications. It should be checked whether it is available from the Drexel University site--some of their articles are. It's unfortunate that the Inquirer is not more concerned about encouraging knowledge about its own city, or the widespread use of its material, in favor of selling a few back articles. But we use it nevertheless. The rule against linking applies only to external links used as representative places, or convenient collections, or similar non-essential uses, not to article sourcing.DGG' (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * External links and sources are virtually the same thing on Wikipedia as an external link here is only valid if it's a valid source. There is nothing in the limited content provided by the two links above that establishes any remote notability to this school. I'm not paying to see the rest of the content. You see, there's a good reason for why pay-per-view websites are to be avoided: if any information that might constitute a source can only be viewed after paying for it, then the subject is hardly any notable because if it were in fact notable then free links documenting its notability would certainly abound. Hús  ö  nd  15:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that a free website providing the full content of an article providing a source is always preferable. However, the Wikipedia policy requirement is that a source is verifiable, not clickable. There is no obligation to provide a full-text website; the sources provided -- even if the links don't work for you -- provide the title of the article, the publication it was found in and the date the article was published, which fully satisfies the Verifiability policy to the letter. Alansohn 15:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * External links and references are completely different things. References are essential, and external links are optional for starters. External links are only suitable if they provide relevant information, but that does not make them sources. To apply external link criteria to sources is completely off base. Everything in WP must be verifiable, but there is no requirement that you be able to verify it without getting out of your chair or for free. Your arguments are far off the mark. Dhaluza 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * weak delete I think there is something here... it just hasn't been brought out to the level necessary to keep.Balloonman 04:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * keep please there are many nontrivial sources for this important school yuckfoo 16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article appears to have been given a re-write post-AFD nomination so it now attempts to establish notability with independent sources and has less POV. The article probably needs to be worked on to have trivial information removed - but does seem to have notable alumni and history. Camaron1 | Chris 11:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - Does not assert non-notability. References (some third party sources) are provided there. Furthermore, overall sections (including Notable alumni section) decreases its non-notability.--NAHID 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep more than enough sources material for a stub. Dhaluza 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject passes our notability guidelines and verifiability standards with multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 04:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Week KeepSeems to pass notabilty marginally. Harlowraman 05:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough sources for notability. TerriersFan 01:01, 18 August 2007 (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.