Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeshivat Shaare Torah


 * 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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination, and there are no delete !votes. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeshivat Shaare Torah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Okay, this article has '''coverage in newspapers or other sources all of which only mention this school passively and as part of an event centred around another subject. Subjects do not inherit the notability of other subjects''' (see WP:INHERIT.) Given that sources which can be found do not give notability to the school itself, but rather another event entirely, then these are not sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:GEO. As subjects on Wikipedia do not inherit notability from others, this article documents a non-notable organization and thus should be deleted.    → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC) [nominator has withdrawn nomination]


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep. [Note to closing admin: This vote is made by the creator of the article] Shaare Torah is a school that in its decades of existance has had thousands of students. It's inherently notable, as all such educational insitutions serving thousands of people would be. Ezzi386 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So essentially your claim is that this school is worthy of attention or notice; That it is striking? One would notice no great quantity of modesty here. You have given me some information which can help build this article if it is indeed notable. That is it has "thousands of students." Has the school had any notable graduates of those thousands of people? Furthermore, you mentioned that the school is old so perhaps the article can go into its history therefore establishing more reason for it to be considered worthy of attention. If you are able to expand this article into something informative about how it is notable rather than just assuming its notable because it is a school then it would be a greater part of making Wikipedia more informative for everyone. I am quite interested to read about this schools striking history and would be very happy to rescind my nomination once the article itself demonstrates notability. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 23:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep while the advertorial tone is a problem, because it includes secondary/high school level it would seem to meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and be inherently notable, as Gnews reveals sources that verify its existence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The link you just provided has a statement: "The results of this February 2017 RFC describe how school AFDs should be evaluated and are summarized below.Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." → (talk to me!) (contributions) 00:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've cited that so many times I didn't realize the Rfc had closed with it being revised (albeit clumsily: why leave criterion 2 intact and then add a 4th criterion at the end, negating it?). Anyway, thanks for the head's up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not your fault that you are only human. I keep coming across your name because you tidy up AfD and add categories which really seems to help thank you for doing that. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 01:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I'm actually glad WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES no longer grants high schools automatic notability. But I guess we should prepare for a land rush of high school nominations? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess that means a lot of category adding for you :-O. I do not even remember how I came across this article to be honest. I have no interest in schools but I guess we can compare Wikipedia to Youtube here. You can go from a video about how to plant a tree to a video with someone eating a squid alive (usually accompanied by a warning "graphic video" introduction for those who would not assume such information from the title of the video.) → (talk to me!) (contributions) 01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. You're an administrator here and I'd like you to expand if you could: doesn't the recent Rfc outcome as noted at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES mean that this past precedent no longer holds? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it does. That wasn't the wording of the RfC: it was to adopt a new notability guideline ("...the proposed change will not be adopted", to quote the closers). And note that I do not cite and never have cited SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The intention of the RfC closers was clearly not to open the floodgates to deletion of secondary school articles, as they clearly stated ("Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations"), and neither was it to destroy an existing consensus or give some sort of victory to the deletionists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply. I'm confused, then. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should not be cited even though the proposed change won't be adopted -- and the practice therefore remains in place for high schools, even though we can't cite why? I know that's not what you're saying -- but it's how it sounds to me. If WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot be cited at Afd then imo the precedence, based upon it, has expired. From what I can see, this school falls fails GNG. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The precedent is that established over hundreds of AfDs. In what possible way does one discussion destroy all that precedent? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the result states now that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist," which is what SCHOOLOUTCOMES often boiled down to, for secondary schools? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really an answer to my (albeit rhetorical) question, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't know what you're after but the Rfc closure seems clear. Thank you for your initial reply. As far as I'm concerned, this is a sea change for high school notability, going forward. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And I disagree. Let's leave it at that. Deletionists, fill your boots! Have a field day! Destroy the project! Frankly, what's the point? I'm seeing less and less reason to be here, sadly. Petty "rules", petty "enforcers". Very sad to see where Wikipedia is going. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Question What do you mean by "deletionist." Sorry if it seems naive but I would rather not assume what you mean and be wrong. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 20:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean someone (and there are sadly too many on Wikipedia) who delights more in deleting existing content (citing some non-existent "rule" to justify their behaviour) than in creating new content. Someone who comes to the project for the joy of destroying others' work rather than to create their own and to look down their nose at anyone who disagrees. The sort of people who actually come to an encyclopaedia and say that their main reason in being here is to delete content and reduce the size of Wikipedia (yes, I've actually seen that written). Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Wikipedia should be full of rubbish and I've deleted plenty of it in my time here, but neither do I believe that valid articles should be deleted just because they don't meet the letter of some rigid, monolithic "rule". I do not see how that is benefiting the incredible project that most of us are surely here to further. Over the years I have seen a massive increase in these "rules" and the number of editors who only seem to come here to "enforce" them and it's really not an edifying experience. This is not, incidentally, an attack on anyone who has posted here, in case it is mistakenly taken to be so. But there are certainly editors out there who will be crowing over the "deletionists' charter" that the RfD may be taken to be and will take full advantage of it to attempt to destroy others' work. It is sometimes hard to assume good faith after reading some comments posted on AfDs and easy to lose faith in what we are doing here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to explain that, I understand the term better now. With specific regard to this article. Have you noticed that this is a private school which students pay to be enrolled? And that the articles tone seems to be geared towards advertising its mere presence rather than quantify any encyclopaedic content? I would say that sometimes, it is human nature to personify an issue such as an AfD beyond the situational facts. When one examines this article, there is a single issue which I think would be worth considering; Is the article representative of content which ought to be on an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit. The boldened writing brings attention to a major factor here and that is Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and thus, theoretically, anything anyone could ever want to inform people about could be included. However, there are practical implications of allowing anything anyone wants to be written on this platform, mainly that it would become an indiscriminate compilation of informative text. Some of that indiscriminate text would be information designed to mislead or act as propaganda for certain causes. If this was to take hold Wikipedia would go from being a platform of knowledge to a platform of indoctrination.
 * Thank you for taking the time to explain that, I understand the term better now. With specific regard to this article. Have you noticed that this is a private school which students pay to be enrolled? And that the articles tone seems to be geared towards advertising its mere presence rather than quantify any encyclopaedic content? I would say that sometimes, it is human nature to personify an issue such as an AfD beyond the situational facts. When one examines this article, there is a single issue which I think would be worth considering; Is the article representative of content which ought to be on an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit. The boldened writing brings attention to a major factor here and that is Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and thus, theoretically, anything anyone could ever want to inform people about could be included. However, there are practical implications of allowing anything anyone wants to be written on this platform, mainly that it would become an indiscriminate compilation of informative text. Some of that indiscriminate text would be information designed to mislead or act as propaganda for certain causes. If this was to take hold Wikipedia would go from being a platform of knowledge to a platform of indoctrination.


 * Now there are two central viewpoints which are shown by my notion. Those who want Wikipedia to be a platform for indoctrination and those who want Wikipedia to be a platform for knowledge. Those who edit with a certain cause such as shown in this article wish it to become a platform for indiscriminate information which acts merely to show something exists and promote its existence rather than provide any useful knowledge about it. That in my mind is a step into the direction of Wikipedia becoming a platform for indoctrination and not knowledge, thus it is my belief it should be removed from Wikipedia.


 * There is a simple criterion which I followed when reading this article in its entirety; Did the article teach me anything? The simple answer was “no.” It showed me something, that is that the institution it speaks of is a private Jewish school which occupies a certain address in New York. Being shown something is invariably different from being taught something, some things both show and teach you things but this merely shows. Now I do not think Wikipedia is a mere stage, billboard or theatre and that is why I have nominated this article for deletion.


 * → (talk to me!) (contributions) 22:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that we have never considered state schools to be more worthy than private schools and I see no good reason to start now. I also have to say that I see little in the way of advertising in the article. It is in no way attempting to "indoctrinate" anyone. It is, to my mind, an article entirely appropriate for an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not think you have understood the point which I was trying to put across here. “Note that we have never considered state schools to be more worthy than private schools and I see no good reason to start now” inferences that I made an argument as to why private schools are less notable than non-private schools. This is no way relevant to the points I made.
 * I do not think you have understood the point which I was trying to put across here. “Note that we have never considered state schools to be more worthy than private schools and I see no good reason to start now” inferences that I made an argument as to why private schools are less notable than non-private schools. This is no way relevant to the points I made.


 * I’m going to try and simplify this. What makes schools exempt from WP:GNG This school is not covered by any coverage in any sources other than its own self-published sources which are not deemed reliable per WP:SOURCE.


 * A recent RfC closed with the summery that a school’s mere existence should not establish notability, which de facto is a reaffirmation of Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. It is not a debate about “deletionist” or “creationist” as Wikipedia is not a social experiment, it’s using rules and guidelines set in place by consensus built on experience from editors with a vast array of experiences on Wikipedia.


 * There is no debate as to if or not this article passes WP:GNG – it does not – and it is not likely to given that I can find no sources about this school other than self-published, however, I might be wrong and am open to being wrong. I am quite perplexed as to why an administrator is arguing against Wikipedia core policies, it does not make sense to me. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 01:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. "Have you noticed that this is a private school which students pay to be enrolled?", you asked. Sorry, but how could I take that as anything other than an argument that it was a special case because it was a fee-paying private school? If you weren't making that case then why did you ask the question in the first place? Since it would be utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What do you define notable to be? → (talk to me!) (contributions) 09:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator states "This school is not covered by any coverage in any sources other than its own self-published sources which are not deemed reliable per WP:SOURCE." This statement is false. It took me only a minute on my smartphone to see that this school has received coverage in reliable, independent sources such as The New York Times, The Gothamist, another New York Times article, Community magazine, Guidestar, and Charity Navigator. The school is also discussed in a book called "The Daily Halacha: A Compendium of Practical Halachot and Illuminating Insights from the Weekly Parasha", and in one Hebrew language book. Given that this is an Orthodox Jewish topic,  a search of Hebrew language newspapers should be completed as well,  many of which are not available online. There is a broader philosophical issue here as well. Wikipedia's Five Pillars are the philosophical underpinning of this project,  and at the beginning of that document,  you will find these sentences:
 * "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."
 * Consider the 1901 edition of the World Almanac, now in the public domain. This single volume reference work contained nineteen pages about U.S. universities. Wikipedia is not confined to a single volume, we do not need to purchase barrels of ink or railroad cars full of paper, and we currently have well over five million English articles. We can easily and appropriately expand our coverage from U. S. universities to all verifiable degree awarding schools worldwide. Arguments that this content is "indiscriminate" are invalid, since this is precisely the sort of content historically included in specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. Arguments that make a distinction between public and private schools are also unpersuasive. This is not "Public-institution-pedia". We should keep  articles about degree awarding schools if these articles comply with our three core content policies: Such articles must be verifiable, written from the neutral point of view,  and include no original research. No school is inherently notable, but we should not be deleting articles based on a nominator's failure to find sources which exist. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  07:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Cullen I have found what you have written extremely interesting. In fact, I understand your philosophy but find myself unable to agree in this case. My first point is based on an argument that coverage by the media does not give inherent notability on its own and especially in the case of for-profit companies like this one.


 * I further argue that there is a definitive difference between coverage and notability. This is based on the logical deduction that news-papers and other news sources write stories about people and issues of interest all the time and often do so indiscriminately, they are not required to establish the notability of their stories and the interest in publishing is with the publisher alone. Small so called “one hit headlines” are common with the inclusion of otherwise non-noteworthy subjects which assert the importance of an event over the importance of the subject itself be it an organization or a person. In these situations, as shown in the sources you have provided, the events themselves would be notable as articles whereas this does not give intrinsic notability to those involved in the event. Surely it would be an idiocy to include organizations or people on Wikipedia simply because they attended an event are have been mentioned passively by a reporter or that the organization happened to be involved in a circumstantial event centred principally around other subjects. This is that argument that notability is not inherited.→ (talk to me!) (contributions) 10:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , your assertion that this is a for profit organization is utterly false as shown by two reliable sources I provided showing that this school is a registered non-profit. You failed to address my argument about almanacs. Have you searched New York's Hebrew language newspapers? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  15:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sighs. Cullen, my friend, which part of this article includes content which is supported by reliable sources? → (talk to me!) (contributions) 16:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need to sigh at me, . There is also no requirement that reliable sources be in the article at this time. I have shown that some sources exist. You failed to find those sources. Instead of sighing,  try answering my questions, dealing with the profit/nonprofit issue,  the almanac issue, the Hebrew language source issue,  and so on. I will expand and reference the article later today Cullen328   Let's discuss it  17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, my name is Solomon, pleased to e-meet you. Secondly there is a reason I am not addressing your issue with regard to almanacs and that is because you are drawing parallel to another book which is not Wikipedia and does not have the same editing guidelines as Wikipedia. Furthermore, there does need to be reliable sources which back up each and every word in a Wikipedia article otherwise said content can be removed. The sources you have provided would give this school inherited notability which is not permitted per WP:INHERIT. Your arguments are non objective and you seem hell bent on wanting to keep this article whatever Wikipedia policy has to say about it. Your arguments thus far are not at all based on Wikipedia's inclusion policies and are instead, on the face of it, based on your own personal opinions. If you have anything other than personal opinions to tell me I would like to hear it, especially if its qualified by a Wikipedia policy. The personal views are usually disregarded in AfD debates by closing administrators in favour of those views expressed which are grounded on some Wikipedia policy. If you can provide me a solid argument which is supported by Wikipedia's inclusion policies as to why this article should continue to exist then I will rescind my nomination. I have zero interest in this article remaining or being deleted either way so my mind is yet still to be changed. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 19:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To clarify:
 * The sources you have provided are focused on an event or subject other than the subject of this article. They passively mention this school in the way of validating its existence as a part of an event, but not the focus of the event itself. The sources do not confer notability directly to this subject therefore for them to be used as sources would be using another subjects notability thus in contrary to WP:INHERIT.
 * Your argument that because the 1901 edition of the World Almanac contains schools that this means schools are automatically notable on Wikipedia is not supported by Wikipedia's current guidelines for notability.
 * There is currently not a single sentence in this article which is supported by reliable sources. Self-published sources are not deemed reliable sources.
 * → (talk to me!) (contributions) 20:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , the article now has eight references and is in full compliance with our core content policies of verifiability, no original research and the neutral point of view. It is you, not I, who have brought falsehoods to this debate, such as the size of the student body, the false claim that the school is profit making, and the claim that no independent sources exist.<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've added the information and citation that the school is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. I'll leave it for others to add further citations, and withhold judgement. It's important that we avoid false premises in these discussions. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I do find it odd that the RfC says WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is correct but we can't say why. So I'm saying why anyway and invoking WP:IAR since "Keep but I can't tell you why" is not how we build an encyclopedia. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking,, SCHOOLOUTCOMES is now on the list of "arguments to avoid at AFD". It's still a valid statement about the result of AFDs, but creates a catch-22 and thus should not be used as a reason for deletion. Happy to discuss it further on a separate venue.
 * GNG, of course, is still completely valid. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how this article, in its current or future form conforms to WP:GNG with consideration of WP:INHERIT? I am genuinely interested as to how one could say it does conform to these guidelines because it will inform my view on other issues. Thank you :-D. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 15:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/nyregion/23grate.html indicates that this isn't actually a high school (it's described as a half-day school with just 60 students at the Village Pump), but rather an educational organization with several components, including a private K–8 school with hundreds of students. I therefore don't think that "it's a high school, so vote my way on it" is a relevant line of argument.  I have found some minor sources in local press:  http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/ywn-videos/286186/watch-yeshiva-headmaster-defends-security-guard-who-roughed-up-man.html  However, in ten minutes of searching, I've not been able to find independent sources that provide a basic description of the organization (the sort needed for WP:WHYN compliance).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment In my opinion, this discussion has been badly contaminated by a series of falsehoods that has been spreading about Yeshivat Shaare Torah, both here and at WP:Village pump (policy). This editor has stated the school's enrollment is 60 half day students. That is false. The fact is that this organization operates a preschool program, a boys elementary school, a girls elementary school, a boys high school and a girls high school, with a combined enrollment of well over 1000 students. The editor claims that it is a profit making business. That is false. The organization is a registered tax exempt non-profit educational group. The editor claims that the only sources available about the organization are self published. That is false. I have added eleven independent references which verify the claims made in the article. Anyone who wants to cite Yeshivat Shaare Torah as an example of why we need to delete articles about secondary schools should rethink their position. Instead, it is an example of failure to properly research the topic before nominating an article for deletion, and a willingness to rely on falsehoods in an enthusiastic drive to delete. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  23:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sighs Okay.
 * 60 students - source
 * The source you provided here says it's name is YESHIVA SHAARE TORAH INC. In the United Kingdom Incorporated companies are different from charities and have a completely separate registration process and are separate legal entities. I am from the UK so I go by that, If I am wrong about this and in the USA Incorporated companies can still be charities then I apologise.


 * Finally, how does this have anything to do with my nomination reason for this article? Have you read it? → (talk to me!) (contributions) 02:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at your source, . Look at the grade range, where it says "PK". That is the abbreviation for "pre-kindergarten". You are looking at a listing for one of the five schools this organization operates, the one that provides half day programs for 2 to 5 year old children,  and you are applying those attendance figures to all five schools. Careless and false.


 * It is routine that non-profit charitable 501(c)(3) educational institutions in the United States charge tuition. I graduated from one such school, the University of San Francisco, and I assure you that they charged tuition. Your observation that this religious school charges tuition is neither surprising nor in any way relevant to whether or not this article should be kept.


 * Your attempt to apply UK law to US charitable institutions is evidence that you lack competence to evaluate the notability of US nonprofit schools and charitable institutions, at least until you do some serious reading about how charities are organized in the US. Non-profit corporations are common in the US. I look forward to the apology you promised.


 * Yes, I read your original nominating statement and also your refactored version after I pointed out that your original statement was based on falsehoods. Both versions of your deletion argument are stunningly unpersuasive. Next time,  try to do some serious research on the topic before trying to delete an article. And try really hard to ensure that you do not spread falsehoods about the topic. Thank you. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  03:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , whatever your view on this article, you have done it a favor by nominating for deletion! Comparing the article prior to nomination to now, it is a transformation. There were some mistakes, but let's all assume good faith. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not apply UK Law to US Law, I merely assumed that a "incorporated company" was a company not a charity and that is how it is in the United Kingdom. This being a for profit institution or not is not at all relevant to the reason I nominated for AfD. It's an issue of terminology and not competence. You clearly do not like that I have nominated this article for deletion, and for that I am sorry. Furthermore, I apologise for incorrectly deeming a charity a for profit organisation as I judged by the standard of UK Terminology for what INC means. You have taught me something about US Law on charities, so I appreciate that. Conclusively, even if you disregard the notions that this school is a for-profit organisation and that it has more than 60 seats how does that at all address my points in the AfD nomination. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 03:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That is good, it needed some TLC ;-). → (talk to me!) (contributions) 03:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Much as I am reluctant (despite being long-standing coord of WP:WPSCH) to keep schools under any whim - for example the way OUTCOMES is often misused although it simply and perfectly summarises how a proven vast majority of school AfD are closed - the strengths of the arguments here are clear and  summarises well how this particular article should be kept, while  clearly outlines how accepted procedure should be applied. These two seasoned editors have not come here from a personal judicial background simply to argue Wikilaw for the sake of Wikilaw and turning a particular AfD into a debate that some would seem to use to turn Wikipedia policies and guidelines into inflexible fiats which even policy itself guards against.


 * A recent RfC mentioned OUTCOMES, which was, BTW, not even part of the RfC proposal statement, and there are many ways in which the same precedent expressed in that 'essay' can be successfully applied without mentioning the word 'OUTCOMES' which has been branded as a rude word and which elucidates: . And on these principles alone I'm sure that learned Wikipedians such as, for example , could add further valid commentary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Rescind nomination - After just having re-read the article in its entirety I believe that sufficient content and sources have been added to pass WP:GNG. The nomination does not appear completely fruitless as has mentioned - it seems to have bought some light to the article and now has actually taught me something rather than simply showing me something. On this basis the validity of my AfD nomination no longer stands thus I move to withdraw it. Thank you. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 03:17, 11 March 2017 (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.