Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldron Mercy Academy


 * 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. And since we've no place to go...... (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Waldron Mercy Academy

 * – (View AfD) (View log · AfD statistics)

One award and one reference in a local paper is not enough to keep in the face of our usual presumption that grade schools are not notable. ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Post nomination comment: The text also appears to be very close to a copyvio of this page. – ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I compared the text and believe that the information in Waldron Mercy Academy has been sufficiently paraphrased as to avoid a copyright violation. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:COI notwithstanding, the Blue Ribbon Schools Program award does make it notable.--Blargh29 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

UKexpat - Adding an article on Wikipedia has become a lot more difficult than I thought it was going to be. Your assertion "One award and one reference in a local paper is not enough to keep in the face of our usual presumption that grade schools are not notable" is disappointing. It's a national award given by the US Dept. of Education. Very few schools across the country have won more than once--we've received it twice. The reference is from The Philadelphia Inquirer, which has a circulation of a few million subscribers. Trishlockett (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware that you are a teacher for this school that the article's title clearly states is that right? Eight Ounce Kitten (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, I'm the marketing director, not a teacher. Let me give you some background on why I've spent several hours of my day here today. I went to a workshop yesterday on social media and the CIO of a school whose school's article is on WP told all of us how easy and beneficial it was to be on Wikipedia. So, I jumped on here this morning. Again, I had no idea it was going to be so difficult. Any suggestions? Trishlockett (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For one thing, tell that CIO that they are not being beneficial when they edit articles with a conflict of interest and misadvise others to do likewise. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable school. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - not only a Blue Ribbon school, the highest award an US school can receive, but a double award winner. Couple that with a bunch of notable alumni and plenty of sources that meet WP:ORG and it makes a convincing case for notability. COI we deal with by editing and, if necessary, by the use of admin tools - advise/warn/block. This is also a case where WP:BEFORE procedures should have been applied. This was AfD'd less than 2 hours after creation and there is no indication that the nominator has searched and evaluated available sources nor considered the merit of the awards. The way forward is clean/source/expand not delete. TerriersFan (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – I'm satisfied by the History section, not the Awards section, that the institution deserves an article. I should note that my opinion comes from one helluva' anti-Catholic; just one who thinks that History ought to be preserved and defended in an encyclopedia.  The WP:COPYVIO problem can be solved by further editing and referencing.  If da' penguin did something of an institutional nature in the US in 1861 that still stands in 2009, then it is notable achievement of said penguin.  In this case, notable enough for an article (I considered merge to the Catherine McAuley article, but this would end up lopsided in that article).  Per WP:SS I consider this article a spin-off the Catherine McAuley article.
 * My opinion rationalizing my keep vote comes largely from the New Melleray Abbey article, an article about some old guys in a house. A notable article about notable old guys in a notable old house that dates to 1849:  Plenty historic enough for Wikipedia at over three million articles; and I appreciate being able to learn about it here, and then being able to research more off Wikipedia because of the WP:EL provided there.
 * However, it's easy to see that this article needs work. There are plenty of resources for this, including WP:UFY, WP:INCUBATE, and notably in this case, WP:SUP (note to Trishlockett, click on each link to see what I'm talking about).  It's not hard to forgive Trishlockett a blatant WP:COI here, the editor is new and missed doing some research first; some research that involves sifting through hundreds, if not thousands, of policy and guideline articles.  Trishlockett, as a member of an educational institution, may want to look more in to what these institutions actually do, and less time listening to CIO's.  I've no doubt the kids being educated there, with the teachers' help, can trundle down to the library and find the references I expect in the article, none of which, I note, will be found on Google Scholar because of their age (last I heard 1861 predates 1994), and will probably need some good dusting when they're found.  Get out the teachers, mobilize the kids, per Wales, and fix the article, don't delete it.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Blue Ribbon schools are notable. Furthermore, this article confirms that M. Night Shyamalan, a two-time Academy Award-nominated filmaker, attended this school. The article lists more notable alumni. Two Blue Ribbon awards and multiple alumni confirm that this school is notable. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to multiple Blue Ribbon awards. Notable alumni is not sufficient criteria, as notability is not inherited.  Original author has been sufficiently minnowed.  --SquidSK (1MC•log) 01:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input and your patience for this WP newbie. I'll continue to work on the article. What a great idea involving our students. They've probably already contributed to other articles in the past. I apologize for my naivete. Trishlockett (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This school seems to have more notability than most schools that are the subject of articles. I'm impressed that Trishlockett didn't become hostile, which is what most newbies with COI would do. Thanks for being good-natured, Trishlockett! --Biglovinb (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I would advise the nominator to read WP:ORG, specifically this: "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." The Blue Ribbon Award is certainly a major achievement, and the longevity is also a factor, as noted by User:Aladdin Sane.  Also, it is misleading to refer to the 16th largest newspaper in the United States as a "local paper".  Coverage in the Philadelphia Enquirer goes a long way towards establishing notability.  Finally, as the nominator's assertion that grade schools are not generally notable, I'm having difficulty finding that in any of the notability guidelines; could you please provide a link to whatever policy that's from?  Cerebellum (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * the general rule is a practical rule based on experience: in the last 3 years essentially all articles of primary schools have been merged or redirected to the school district or town or whatever seems the best place. None have been kept as separate articles unless there is some really special distinction, as there is here. At first, I personally did not want to accept Blue Ribbon as sufficiently special, but the consensus has consistently been that they are. What we consistently do is policy just as much as what we write down.  It is often much easier getting consensus at AfD, than at a formal  policy discussion,which requires an undefined supermajority--which in practice tends to mean that a few people stubbornly objecting can prevent adoption.     DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep. Per all the above keeps.  Not even close.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow keep, that might perhaps save some people some time.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe you're thinking of speedy keep, not snow, and only if Orange Mike also retracts his deletion support would it qualify. An admin can close the AfD early citing a snow keep but that's up to the admin's judgment, not any actions taken in this discussion. --  At am a  頭 00:56, 8 December 2009 (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.